Being Buffaloed

[dr.hal]

double post, sorry!!!!

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

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.

Yes BBfanboy, that's what the clip in my OP argues and I agree with it (thus the desire to start this thread). The Far East was certainly considered a low priority as the home island was struggling for its very survival. And this distribution of priorities was exacerbated by the mistaken perception that the Japanese could be easily defeated by second tier equipment and in many cases relatively green troops.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

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.

Yes BBfanboy, that's what the clip in my OP argues and I agree with it (thus the desire to start this thread). The Far East was certainly considered a low priority as the home island was struggling for its very survival. And this distribution of priorities was exacerbated by the mistaken perception that the Japanese could be easily defeated by second tier equipment and in many cases relatively green troops.

To give an example that reinforces Dr Hal's comments ^^^^, some Australian anti-tank batteries in Malaya were equipped with captured Italian a/t guns. Meanwhile units training in Australia for AIF deployment to Egypt, were training on Australian made 2lbrs. There was no sense of urgency, and certainly no application of the principle of more abundant caution.

Edit - and those Italian guns are in the stock scenario of AE, in the 'tank attack' unit that is part of 27th brigade.

Also, the a/t regiment war diary records that on 6 December 1941, when code-word "Raffles" was issued, the regiment had 12 x 2lbrs, and 24 x "75mm" guns on hand. Niehorster identifies those as ww1 vintage French field howitzers. It wouldn't be surprising to find the lads ditched the Italian guns and "liberated" the 75s from a depot somewhere. As they retreated back into Singapore, they started using some Breda guns again. What a shambles.

[JeffroK]

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

Finnish pilots achieved considerable success, but flew the Brewster 239 before it gained weight and was redesignated the Brewster 339 as flown in Malaya.
Finnish pilots were experienced having flown in The Winter War whereas the British, Australian & New Zealand pilots, for the most part, were barely out of flight school.
Many Buffaloes over Malaya suffered from overheating, not a common problem over Finland and Northern Russia.
Finnish pilots faced poorly trained enemy using faulty tactics, something like the RAF was expecting the Japanese to follow.

Add the myriad of other problems the Buffaloes faced in Malaya its not surprising they performed poorly.

[JeffroK]

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.

The bigger question, what frontline aircraft did the Allies have available.
The British could offer either the Spitfire V or Hurricane II. But in addition to Home Defence/Offence into France the RAF had to defend Malta, The Western Desert and provide aid to the USSR. US imports of the P40 Tomahawk were available for the Western Desert, Kittyhawk variants only available in early 1942. The RAF had received 100+ Airacobra I deemed unsuitable for NW Europe, these would be equivalent to the P-400.
The USAAF didnt even have the ability to supply anything better than the P40C & P40E which were stationed in The Philippines and Hawaiian Islands. F4F-3's were the best available as a Carrier fighter.

It could be that a better fight was possible if better trained pilots were available, better support facilities, RADAR, AA support,etc etc etc was available. If the RAF had 100 Spitfire V half of them would still be destroyed on the ground.

The Allies had to survive 1942, 1943 would see the arrival of Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Mustangs, Spitfires, Kittyhawks & Warhawks in ever increasing numbers, plus the infrastructure to use them efficiently.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

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.

The bigger question, what frontline aircraft did the Allies have available.
The British could offer either the Spitfire V or Hurricane II. But in addition to Home Defence/Offence into France the RAF had to defend Malta, The Western Desert and provide aid to the USSR. US imports of the P40 Tomahawk were available for the Western Desert, Kittyhawk variants only available in early 1942. The RAF had received 100+ Airacobra I deemed unsuitable for NW Europe, these would be equivalent to the P-400.
The USAAF didnt even have the ability to supply anything better than the P40C & P40E which were stationed in The Philippines and Hawaiian Islands. F4F-3's were the best available as a Carrier fighter.

It could be that a better fight was possible if better trained pilots were available, better support facilities, RADAR, AA support,etc etc etc was available. If the RAF had 100 Spitfire V half of them would still be destroyed on the ground.

The Allies had to survive 1942, 1943 would see the arrival of Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Mustangs, Spitfires, Kittyhawks & Warhawks in ever increasing numbers, plus the infrastructure to use them efficiently.

I think that is the key point.

There was nothing fundamentally wrong with an F2A if it was WAD fighting Nates and early model Oscars. But the aircraft were defective and rapidly became unserviceable.

[Wirraway_Ace]

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

This was a great watch, dr. hal. It reminded me of a quote from an RAF pilot in Bloody Shambles. Something like, "The Buffalo could not turn with a zero or out climb it, but it could out dive it. The Hurricane could do none of these."

I am with the author on your question. The USAAF did not fare any better in the PI with P40s. The Allies were tactically unprepared for the Japanese, operationally green, and had inadequate infrastructure to sustain the fight. The better aircraft would have been lost too with little impact to the Japanese success.