Being Buffaloed

[dr.hal]

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

[mind_messing]

Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater?

No.

The element of strategic surprise that Dec 7th brought would not disappear, and nor would the substantial experience difference between the Japanese pilot cadres and their Allied counterparts. The British and Commonwealth would be in a better position to meet the Japanese with frontline aircraft, but that advantage would be diminished by logistical considerations and the needs of the European theatre.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

warspite1

One of the big problems in Malaya was, iirc, the airfields being overrun. Better aircraft may have incurred more losses on the Japanese, but I don't think this would matter too much without better land forces.

There was also the matter of Henan? the spy within the British armed forces that gave intelligence to the Japanese. Many aircraft were destroyed on the ground.

[geofflambert]

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

[paradigmblue]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

I'd love to know your Escort/CAP settings with them, because I get straight up trashed when attempting to go up against Japanese carriers with anything less than a 2:1 numerical advantage until the Hellcat.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

I'd love to know your Escort/CAP settings with them, because I get straight up trashed when attempting to go up against Japanese carriers with anything less than a 2:1 numerical advantage until the Hellcat.

Strange in our game Wildcat and also P40 are overrated imho. For some reason even w/ 3 x more numbers and better planes these get to my bombers FAST withOUT my escorts doing much? I believe our PBM might be screwed up somehow (there are also other issues). See here for example:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4923122

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

I'd love to know your Escort/CAP settings with them, because I get straight up trashed when attempting to go up against Japanese carriers with anything less than a 2:1 numerical advantage until the Hellcat.

I had 4 AARs playing the Allies. All four times I sank the entire KB - all six in one battle - three of those were in March or April of '42. I don't remember for sure but I don't remember losing any carriers doing it. Search for those old AARs. Three times I did it with four CVs and the other time I had five. I generally had fighters on 30% CAP and both types of bombers on 10% search.

edit: All fighters were at 30% CAP and in escort mode set for maximum range.

[geofflambert]

The key each time was that my opponent took the KB out beyond his land based search coverage and I could see him the day before battle but he couldn't see me. In the morning my carriers were waiting for him.

My opponents resigned after those battles.

I believe all four of those battles occurred in the Coral Sea not far from New Caledonia.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

It wouldn't matter if they had Hellcats until they could put 3 or 4 carriers together and have a battle like Midway that could win the war.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

It wouldn't matter if they had Hellcats until they could put 3 or 4 carriers together and have a battle like Midway that could win the war.

A problem which is partly modelled in the game is the failure, in 1941, to put in place an in depth infrastructure of air base, maintenance and repair facilities (with sufficient spare parts) to support the aircraft that were there. Along with adequate ground defences, early warning radar, AAA, protected aircraft stands, etc.

When you add that to the lack of functional oxygen systems, worn out engines, radio equipment problems, and the like the Buffaloes - which despite their faults were, if fully functional, superior in some respects* to the Nates in theatre in more numbers than the Oscars, and competitive with the latter, were not in the air in sufficient numbers, and at high enough altitude to have a chance. Notwithstanding that, as an example, 488 RNZAF (starting with 25 F2A, and later getting 9 Hurricanes) did its best and shot down some IJA machines, but by February had no flyable aircraft left, and the pilots were flown out.

*The Nates were more maneuverable, and being lighter, climbed faster, but if the Buffaloes could have orbited higher, they might have used their speed advantage to adopt the "boom and zoom" tactics, as used elsewhere to avoid turning fights at lower altitudes.

[RangerJoe]

The Buffalo's engines were worn out ex-civilian ones in many instances. Add to the the extra weight which the Dutch tended to remove and then the machine was overweight. The Dutch made did good use of them and so did the Finns.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

It wouldn't matter if they had Hellcats until they could put 3 or 4 carriers together and have a battle like Midway that could win the war.

warspite1

Ah I see you are talking about the game. I thought you were responding to the OP and his request for comment re the real life position facing the US and Commonwealth in December 1941.

Please ignore my comment. My response to you was based on what the OP wanted to know.

[JeffroK]

A website with a lot of interesting articles about the Buffalo

www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

warspite1

So what are your thoughts on this dr.hal? Do you think better aircraft would have made any difference?

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

This right here!

The Wildcat while definitely outclassed by later USN fighters the tank held the line until the cavalry came. It had its limitations like most fighters but a pilot taking advantage of its good qualities more times than not came home in better shape than the Wildcat.

I'd rather be a pilot of a Wildcat than a A6M2 Zero any day.

The Saburo Sakai vs Pug Southerland battle over Sealark Channel was classic for those that have seen the documentary.

AS for the Buffalo, I can remember having a blast in CFS2 using it over Midway against Zeros. Fun times.

[821Bobo]

I'd rather be a pilot of a Wildcat than a A6M2 Zero any day.

+1

or P-40

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So what are your thoughts on this dr.hal? Do you think better aircraft would have made any difference?

Well, thanks for asking Warspite1,I appreciate it. In truth, before I did any research on the topic, I would have said that it's the lack of frontline aircraft (afterall my father was a pilot in the RAF during the war in India and Burma so I've a vested interest in it being OTHER than pilots) but upon further looking into it, I think it clearly centers on the infrastructure/training as the clip I originally posted suggests. Thus my real question was not about the Buffalo, but about what was wrong with the far East air game in December 1941? I think it hinged on the mistaken believe that the Japanese were inferior and it wasn't going to take much to put them in their place. With the shattering Japanese victories of the first few weeks of the Pacific war, I think the wind was taken out of the Allies' sails and it took many months to regain a more realistic footing. Meaning that in many instances the Allies were defeated even before being engaged. So in direct response to your question Warspite, NO, I don't think it would have made much difference at all. But that's just my take on a lot of stuff that I've read.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I thought you were responding to the OP and his request for comment re the real life position facing the US and Commonwealth in December 1941.

Please ignore my comment. My response to you was based on what the OP wanted to know.

You're right Warspite1 in that there are many times that threads have "sidebars" attached to them that steer the dialog in a new direction not intended by the OP. I was and AM still interested in the actual events of the first few months of the war and the aircraft on hand. I DO find it interesting that the game seems to reflect the poor infrastructure/training of the Allies during this period. This reflects positively on the developer's understanding of the actual situation that the protagonists faced in the opening phase of the war.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So what are your thoughts on this dr.hal? Do you think better aircraft would have made any difference?

Well, thanks for asking Warspite1,I appreciate it. In truth, before I did any research on the topic, I would have said that it's the lack of frontline aircraft (afterall my father was a pilot in the RAF during the war in India and Burma so I've a vested interest in it being OTHER than pilots) but upon further looking into it, I think it clearly centers on the infrastructure/training as the clip I originally posted suggests. Thus my real question was not about the Buffalo, but about what was wrong with the far East air game in December 1941? I think it hinged on the mistaken believe that the Japanese were inferior and it wasn't going to take much to put them in their place. With the shattering Japanese victories of the first few weeks of the Pacific war, I think the wind was taken out of the Allies' sails and it took many months to regain a more realistic footing. Meaning that in many instances the Allies were defeated even before being engaged. So in direct response to your question Warspite, NO, I don't think it would have made much difference at all. But that's just my take on a lot of stuff that I've read.

I think you need to consider the situation from a more global perspective. Britain was still fighting for its life against the U-boats and surface raiders, and only had reinforcement from Commonwealth countries and European states taken by the Nazis (e.g. Poland). Aviation fuel would have been precious, as would all modern aircraft. Consequently, India was left with little in the way of war training goods - especially AVGAS. And because you are correct that the Japanese were underestimated by the Allies, no one felt urgency to improve the situation in the Far East.

A more dynamic commander might have hectored for more stuff, but I am not sure Churchill could have obliged. The Mediterranean and North Africa must have seemed much more urgent and important.