PDA

View Full Version : F2 new turning champ



JFC_Warhawk
12-25-2004, 01:25 PM
Been running tests against different japanese models INCLUDING the KI-84. Don't tangle with this one meatballs, in a turning match, you will be toast.

JFC_Warhawk
12-25-2004, 01:25 PM
Been running tests against different japanese models INCLUDING the KI-84. Don't tangle with this one meatballs, in a turning match, you will be toast.

fordfan25
12-25-2004, 01:27 PM
i noticed right away it is a good turner.

TX-WarHawk
12-25-2004, 01:27 PM
Predictable. The B-239 was a famous turner back in 1.22.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-25-2004, 01:29 PM
It does not outturn the Zero. Try it online with a human flying the Zero and you will see.

DeerHunterUK
12-25-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
It does not outturn the Zero. Try it online with a human flying the Zero and you will see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or even worse the dreaded Ki-43, that turns like a terrier chasing its tail.

JFC_Warhawk
12-25-2004, 02:14 PM
They were human pilots Havok. All dead meat. Gotta try the other one mentioned. Thanks.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-25-2004, 02:38 PM
Tracks may be in order then. I somehow don't think it should be out turning Zeros, unless you were going rather fast.

Stiglr
12-25-2004, 03:00 PM
F2 new turning champ??

Famous last words of many a Dutch and American pilot, I guess. Noobs....

x__CRASH__x
12-25-2004, 03:41 PM
Just because they were human doesn't mean they have a clue. I'll fly it against people I know KNOW how to fly. Then I will make a determination.

fordfan25
12-25-2004, 04:09 PM
ok crash but who will fly yours lol. j/k

Stiglr
12-25-2004, 04:51 PM
ROFL.

But seriously, if the things are modelled properly, no F2A Buffalo is going to be competitive against a Zero, a Oscar, or even a Nate or Claude.

I would hope, for starters, that the darned things are quite a bit heavier than the Finnish B-239s in FB. That seems to have been the difference.

TAGERT.
12-25-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But seriously, if the things are modelled properly, no F2A Buffalo is going to be competitive against a Zero, a Oscar, or even a Nate or Claude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define competitive! In that the first zero shot down by the USN was by a F2A.

Next, present some data, in that I dont care about your take (ie interpatation) on what someon said. Espically something said with no numbers to test for.. ie combat pilot said A was faster than B. So.. just how fast is fast? Where as a test pilot would say something along the lines of "At 10,000 feet at MP of XX, A was 15mph faster than B at MP of YY.

JFC_Warhawk
12-25-2004, 05:08 PM
Why don't you try it for yourself guys.

And Stig....I have probably had this game longer than you... how bout chillin on the "noob" thing? Or perhaps I should bow down and worship your highness?

Cheers.

Stiglr
12-25-2004, 06:51 PM
Well, TAGERT, I don't need to provide you jack sh** to still prove my point.

Why don't YOU read a little history and see how the Buffalo fared against the Japanese in Malaya, and in the Dutch East Indies?

I even got a book for ya; actually, a couple of books for ya:

Bloody Shambles, vol. 1 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/094881750X/qid=1104025708/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-2986846-7966531?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and 2 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0948817674/qid=1104025708/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2986846-7966531?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). These detail exhaustively the early Japanese campaigns against the Dutch, British and Americans. Or, to get more granular on just that airframe, there's Buffaloes Over Singapore (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1904010326/qid=1104025814/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2986846-7966531?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), by the same writing team.

Sure, Buffalos got some kills here and there, they weren't totally defenseless. But, they got their arses well and truly kicked by the Japanese. American Buffaloes were DUCKS.

Anybody, even a fanboi, can see that without a sliderule, any charts, or any attempt to figure it out with this flight model, which already has holes in it big enough to drive a B-25 through. Why is it with you that if the IL-2 FM doesn't validate even an obvious fact, it must be wrong? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Change your attitude: it should be that the IL-2 FM is able to be validated by history, not the other way around, don'tcha think??

It's just fact and common sense. And Warhawk, no matter how long either of us has had whatever game, a fact is a fact. It is a pretty basic fact, too. Just check the historical record.

By the way, I've been reading another book on the Pacific war, and they went out of their way to mention how poorly the Buffaloes at Midway fared. Only brave Torpedo 8 had a worse story to tell.

ElAurens
12-25-2004, 07:04 PM
I quite handily out turned an F2A flown by someone who I consider my equal in skill, and I was in an A6M2-N.

It is a fun little bird, and in skilled hands will suprise some, but an uber plane it is not.

Oh, yeah, a few rounds of 20mm will pop it like an overinflated balloon.

Eraser_tr
12-25-2004, 07:20 PM
The Brewster had a very bad combat record in the pacific. It was much heavier than the finnish B-239 which would have been exactly like the F2A-1.

Of course it really is the pilot that makes the plane. No plane will turn a poor pilot into a good one, but a good pilot can turn a poor plane into a good one.

I did read that some pilots prefered the F2A over the F4F for regular(non combat) flight but wouldn't want to take the brewster into a dogfight.

p1ngu666
12-25-2004, 08:23 PM
it was a average plane (at best), the zero was a exptional plane for its time.

ive read about bufflo, i think it could roll and dive better, but the zero spanked it everywhere else

mind, i think a no cockpit server will make it 10x more effective than cockpit on, simply because of the site.

JFC_Warhawk
12-25-2004, 08:46 PM
Not going to argue with a kid.
See ya in da skies boyz.

mortoma
12-25-2004, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
ROFL.

But seriously, if the things are modelled properly, no F2A Buffalo is going to be competitive against a Zero, a Oscar, or even a Nate or Claude.

I would hope, for starters, that the darned things are quite a bit heavier than the Finnish B-239s in FB. That seems to have been the difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They do stall easier and feel heavier than the Finnish version. But the F2A-2 should at least be a lot faster than all those japanese planes you mentioned. But I think they goofed, because it's not. The real F2A-2 was supposed to go 458Kph at sea level. I can't get much over 400Kph in mine.

Stiglr
12-25-2004, 09:19 PM
All of which means exactly nothing when you've got Brewsters straining to claw for altitude to stop Sally and Nell bombers from laying waste to their airfields and shipping.

Flat out sprints at sea level have almost NO utility in a combat situation. The Zeros and other planes lit up the Buffaloes at low speed, staggering out of climbs.

VF-3Thunderboy
12-25-2004, 09:33 PM
A large part of the Buffalos problem was the engine bearings overheated, and the guns constantly jammed (Dutch, Britts). The pilot armour was also placed behind the CG, giving it some problems (big turning problem).

Bad Bearings, and Jamming guns were the main issue though. (Buffalos over Singapore) and tactics, although it was poor at high altitude.

In CFS2 the 1% Buffalo was used ALOT by a very few to exellent advantage in online dogfights.Most pilots avoided it because of its "bad Historical rep", but it turned better than the F4F no doubt.

Stiglr
12-25-2004, 10:21 PM
I liked what Pappy Boyington said about Buffaloes being "sweet little ships" until the high command screwed 'em up with all the extra gear and weight.

heywooood
12-25-2004, 10:48 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Buffalo could roll like a 'gator with a sandwich on its back...

woofiedog
12-25-2004, 11:36 PM
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g416362.jpg
Leaving San Diego, California, 14 October 1941.
Planes parked on her flight deck include F2A-1 fighters (parked forward), SBD scout-bombers (amidships) and TBD-1 torpedo planes (aft).
Note the false bow wave painted on her hull, forward, and badly chalked condition of the hull's camouflage paint.

In early 1941, fighter squadrons VF-3 and VF-2 were both re-equipped with the F2A-2. They operated from the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and the USS Lexington. In early service, the Wright Cyclone engine experienced problems with bearings which necessitated frequent overhauls, and the landing gear failure problems (which had plagued the F2A-1) continued to plague the F2A-2. Despite repeated attempts by Brewster engineers to strengthen the landing gear, landing gear failures were never completely eliminated. The Navy pilots were, nonetheless, generally pleased with their F2A-2s, and they regarded them as the best of the Buffalo variants that they had the opportunity to fly.

War in the Burma/Malaya theater began on December 8, 1941 with a Japanese landing on the Malayan coast. The Brewsters did experience some initial successes against Japanese Army Air Force Ki-27s and Ki-43s, and there were at least three Commonwealth pilots who became aces during this period. However, when the Japanese Navy A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) appeared, the Buffalo was completely outclassed. The Zero was faster, more maneuverable and had a heavier armament. In an attempt to improve the Buffalo's performance, ground crews removed all unnecessary equipment to lower the weight, sometimes replacing the 0.50-inch machine guns with lighter 0.303-inch guns and reducing the ammunition and fuel load. However, these modifications did not even come close to closing the performance gap between the Buffalo and the Zero.

When the Japanese attack against the Dutch East Indies began, the 2-VLG V moved up to share British airfields near Singapore, and fought alongside the Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons defending Singapore from the Japanese. At that time, some of the Dutch 339Cs were fitted with armored windshields. When the Japanese appeared about to overrun Singapore, 2-VLG V moved to Borneo to join 1-VLG V in a last-ditch attempt to hold back the Japanese onslaught. However, very little could be done there to stem the tide of the Japanese advance, and both squadrons had to be withdrawn to Java.

On Java, 3-VLG IV and 3-VLG V were in action against Japanese forces invading Sumatra. On February 9, 1942 3-VLG IV was decimated when a Japanese air attack destroyed many of their Buffalos while on the ground. This squadron had to be disbanded on February 12, and the three surviving Brewsters were transferred to 2-VLG V.

The Japanese advance was extremely rapid, and by mid-February 1942, the Japanese had taken all of the Dutch East Indies except Java. On February 26, 1942, the Japanese invasion of Java began, but by this time only a dozen Brewsters were still airworthy in all three surviving ML-KNIL Buffalo squadrons. They still fought on against impossible odds. Their last operational mission was flown on March 7, 1942. Java fell on March 8, and all Dutch forces in the Indies surrendered on March 9.

The Brewsters were completely outclassed by the Japanese fighters which opposed them. The Model 339C and D were inferior to the Japanese Zero in speed, maneuverability and in climb rate. During three months of combat, 30 Brewsters were lost in air combat, 15 were destroyed on the ground, and a number were lost in accidents. 17 pilots were killed in action. Against these losses, Dutch Brewsters claimed 55 enemy aircraft destroyed, a victory-to-loss ratio of almost two to one.


Links
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a.html

WUAF_Badsight
12-26-2004, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Define competitive! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the Buffalo was slower

the buffalo had much worse climb

the Buffalo had slightly worse turn ability

the Buffalo was heavier

the F2A wasnt as good a fighter as the Zero , that dont mean it couldnt get the jump on unsuspecting pilots in a multiples versus multiples situation

but that is hardly a "plane comparison" is it ?

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, TAGERT, I don't need to provide you jack sh** to still prove my point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. but you do.. *IF* your point is *something* is not right about the way a plane flys.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Why don't _YOU_ read a little history and see how the Buffalo fared against the Japanese in Malaya, and in the Dutch East Indies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, what part of that history I provided did you not understand? ie the part about the Buffalo being the first usn plane to shoot down a zero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I even got a book for ya; actually, a couple of books for ya: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Spare me your interptation of things.. my new years resolution is I dont care about your *feeling* and or *interptation* of things when it comes to FM's. Get it?

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Buffalo was slower

the buffalo had much worse climb

the Buffalo had slightly worse turn ability

the Buffalo was heavier

the F2A wasnt as good a fighter as the Zero , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's the man not the machine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
that dont mean it couldnt get the jump on unsuspecting pilots in a multiples versus multiples situation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is true of any plane vs plane.. But to bust your bubble a little more.. The SENARIO that the F2 shot down the ZERO was in a 1 on 1 and after a few turns.. So no multiples and or unsuspecting pilots.. Just a case where two planes were one was a Buffalo that was

was slower

had much worse climb

had slightly worse turn ability

was heavier

Beat a ZERO that you claime was

was faster

had much better climb

had slightly better turn ability

was lighter

Which is why combat pilot accounts are so hard to use as a test.. Let alone some want-2-be sim pilot interpetation some 60years later.. Combat pilot reports/statments say more about the pilot than the planes.. Unlike test pilot reports/statements in a NACA like tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
but that is hardly a "plane comparison" is it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly

WUAF_Badsight
12-26-2004, 02:37 AM
what bubble is it that you think your bursting &gt;?

the planes specs speak for themselves

you could probably find an example of some unarmed 500 Hp recon plane evading a Me-262 during WW2 . . . . & so what ?

you said "competitive"

well sorry dude , but no way in hell , the Zeke had everything over the Buffalo

GerritJ9
12-26-2004, 03:23 AM
Not quite........ the Brewster could, like the F4F, outdive the Zero. Furthermore, like the F4F, it was a rugged aeroplane that could take a lot of punishment and still get home- punishment that would see a Ki43 or A6M2 burst into flames or fall apart.
The key was pilot training. The Commonwealth Buff pilots were, mostly, fresh out of basic training; most of the KNIL pilots had a lot of experience as pilots, but almost no combat training. It should be remembered that before 1940, the KNIL's fighter strength consisted of a few Curtiss P6E Hawks, the Glenn Martin bomber fleet having absorbed nearly all of the available funds in the 1930s. Not until late 1940 did the KNIL start to seriously build a fighter fleet, with a nominal strength of 20 Curtiss Hawk 75A-7s, 24 CW 21B Interceptors and 72 Brewster B339Cs and Ds. Try covering an area the size of the NEI with such a small fighter force!
Also, on nearly every occasion the Commonwealth and KNIL fighters were heavily outnumbered and faced pilots with much better combat training and in many cases also combat experience in China. With similar training, the Allied Buff pilots would have done MUCH better than they did- which, when one looks closely at the records, wasn't bad at all under the circumstances.

richybrowne
12-26-2004, 06:04 AM
Jesus, you guys really really are *****y. TAGERT seems to be very aggressive when making a point. Chill out man, it's a game.
And as for the F2 being the first plane to shoot down a zero, what does that proove?
I had a blue car which was the first car i had to crash into a pole. but i've had 3 blue cars since and none of them have? Doh?

Chill the F**K out!!!

J18Weed
12-26-2004, 08:48 AM
Dont waste your time with him...he is all knowing
no nothing...

Stiglr
12-26-2004, 11:06 AM
You can tell TAGERT doesn't know what he's talking about when he shrugs off three well-researched scholarly books as "my interpretation". I didn't write those books, but experts did.

But that, of course, isn't enough for him. Oleg himself has to say so, or he doesn't buy it.

Maybe we ought to let him have his -4 Corsair. With what he's operating with between the ears, he wouldn't know what to do with it anyway.

Udidtoo
12-26-2004, 11:33 AM
Ego's so large they have there own zip codes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don't stop now kids, my pain meds ain't kicked in yet and y'all make quite an amusing distraction.
Oh oh , will I get to be paraphrased by Capt. Quotation now?!
Then Stig and BS can dismiss me as irrelevent in their most dismissive and repoachful manner. Com'on ya know ya wanna. Ya know ya hav to. "Can't fight ego....must post scathing reply......fingers moving on their own......can't fight ego........too large, simply too large"

ElAurens
12-26-2004, 11:33 AM
While I agree that the Brewster Buffalo was no match for the A6M series, we need to remember that the Navy actually picked it over the F4F on the basis of it's performance. While being roughly equal in speed to the Wildcat, it was more maneuverable, and had better visibility. RAF pilots also praised it's maneuverability and it's aileron response.

Where the F2A, (and subsequent models), lost out to the Wildcat was in shipboard servicability. The F2 series was very complex. One of the big areas was wing changes. If an F4F damaged a wing is was a relatively straight forward matter to unbolt the bad one and pop on another. Not so with the F2, which required removal of the entire wing assembly, drilling out of rivets, etc...

Hence the Navy switched over to the F4F.

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
what bubble is it that you think your bursting ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The bubble where you thought the only way a Buffalo best a ZERO is if the Buffalo got the jump on unsuspecting pilots in a multiples versus multiples situation That bubble!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the planes specs speak for themselves <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of it's the man, not the machine did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you could probably find an example of some unarmed 500 Hp recon plane evading a Me-262 during WW2 . . . . & so what ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The so what is what I said.. and that would be a perfect example of it's the man, not the machine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you said "competitive" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I said define it. Which you attempted to do so, to which I pointed out a Buffalo that..

was slower

had much worse climb

had slightly worse turn ability

was heavier

Beat a ZERO that you claime was

was faster

had much better climb

had slightly better turn ability

was lighter

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
well sorry dude , but no way in hell, the Zeke had everything over the Buffalo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everything.. YET in a one on one a Buffalo shot down a ZERO. Which only proves that it's the man, not the machine has to be factored into the definition of "competitive"... Something you left out.. And that the pilot factor is more important than the on paper specs of +/- 10mph.

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
While I agree that the Brewster Buffalo was no match for the A6M series, we need to remember that the Navy actually picked it _over_ the F4F on the basis of it's performance. While being roughly equal in speed to the Wildcat, it was more maneuverable, and had better visibility. RAF pilots also praised it's maneuverability and it's aileron response.

Where the F2A, (and subsequent models), lost out to the Wildcat was in shipboard servicability. The F2 series was very complex. One of the big areas was wing changes. If an F4F damaged a wing is was a relatively straight forward matter to unbolt the bad one and pop on another. Not so with the F2, which required removal of the _entire_ wing assembly, drilling out of rivets, etc...

Hence the Navy switched over to the F4F. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that can not be true.. Because it did not show up in one of Stiglers coloring books! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stiglr
12-26-2004, 12:23 PM
TAGERT, your apparent stupidity and lack of logic just astound me.

On the one hand, you're shouting, "show me the numbers". We show you the evidence and somehow, it's "our impression".

On the other, you're saying that if ONE TIME, a Buffalo defeats a Zero in a 1-on-1 battle, that completely scrubs the rest of the results of the matchups between these two planes throughout history; which, incidicentally, will have the Zero coming out on top overwhelmingly.

You must just do this to be contrary. You just go on believing that the Buffalo is competitive with a Zero... we'll keep on thinking yer a dang fool.

ZG77_Nagual
12-26-2004, 12:41 PM
In my relative dogfighting tests the Buffalo seems spot on relative to early zeros. Also a beautiful 3d model inside and out.

WUAF_Badsight
12-26-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
The bubble where you thought the only way a Buffalo best a ZERO is if <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
learn to read . .. . . . & find where i said only

also you you plz search & find where i have ever posted that pilot skill isnt a factor in making A2A kills

since when was this a US vrs JPN pilot comparison thread ?

why bring up pilot skill when your discussing planes ?

you brought it up to bolster your opinion that the brewster was a competitive A/C against the Zero

your wrong

GerritJ9
12-26-2004, 01:32 PM
Actually the F4F eventually won for other reasons. The main one was that Brewster repeatedly made promises to the Navy regarding delivery dates, but failed to keep them, in part because Brewster decided to deliver to foreign customers first. The main problem however was Brewster's production facilities which were not capable of manufacturing the large quantities required, plus appalling management. Eventually the Navy practically took control of Brewster, but gave up in 1944 and shut Brewster down. By then Brewster was building F4Us in a new factory, but even this did not result in faster delivery of aeroplanes. Grumman, on the other hand, COULD meet the required delivery dates- which is why the F4F got the nod in the end. Not everybody was happy with the F4F, though; several Marine pilots who flew the F4F at Guadalcanal felt they would have been better off with the Buffalo.

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
TAGERT, your apparent stupidity and lack of logic just _astound_ me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure many things astound you.. Things like the the room getting brighter when you flich a switch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
On the one hand, you're shouting, "show me the numbers". We show you the evidence and somehow, it's "our impression". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Evidence? Your basic problem is you dont understand the basic argument that without numbers you can not say if the FM is on or off. In that the *difference* your noticing between the story you mom read to you and what you see happening online could be due to something as simple as pilots skills not FM errors. That basic concept you have never understood. Let alone your misconception of what your interptation of the so called evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
On the other, you're saying that if ONE TIME, a Buffalo defeats a Zero in a 1-on-1 battle, that completely scrubs the rest of the results of the matchups between these two planes throughout history; which, incidicentally, will have the Zero coming out on top overwhelmingly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, is pilot accounts, can not be used to determine if the FM is right or wrong. In that most of the small advantages between planes is far exceeded by pilot skil. Thus, without numbers to test to, ie climb rate, roll rates, etc you dont know if the sim is doing a good job or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You must just do this to be contrary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary, you contined avoidance of the FACT that combat pilot accounts dont provided enough info to recreate the senario.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You just go on believing that the Buffalo is competitive with a Zero... we'll keep on thinking yer a dang fool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, Im sorry Stiglr.. You seem to be operaring under the false impression that I care what you think about me? Im sure I have told you before that is not the case! I guess when you read it before, you interptaion was a little off?

TAGERT.
12-26-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
learn to read . .. . . . & find where i said only <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Guess I struck a nerve huh? Just to be crystal, it was your ONLY example.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
also you you plz search & find where i have ever posted that pilot skill isnt a factor in making A2A kills <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go back and look at your definition of competitive and note the lack of any mention of pilot skill.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
since when was this a US vrs JPN pilot comparison thread ?

why bring up pilot skill when your discussing planes ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sense you didnt make note of pilot skill being a factor of an aircraft being competitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you brought it up to bolster your opinion that the brewster was a competitive A/C against the Zero

your wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What ever gets you to sleep at night!

p1ngu666
12-26-2004, 04:28 PM
ok some specs for u. i got a feeling the production ones didnt even meet these (not for the RAF anyways) reached 292mph max at 20,000ft

ill photo these pages for u, if u wish

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/SIMG6649web.jpg

a single fairey battle shot down 3 109s over france....
this doesnt mean its actully a good fighter, or bomber (it was a light bomber). it was a exceedingly **** plane.

anyways, even in a melee i found it near impossible because of the gunsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-26-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Just to be crystal . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well get it right the first time round

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tagert.:
Go back and look at your definition of competitive and note the lack of any mention of pilot skill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
are you ******ed ?

since when does a pilot have anything to do with a planes design ? , in case you hadnt noticed , the gist of the thread is how the buffalo stacks up against the Zeke

does it tick you off to know the buffalo is a inferior fighter ? (too bad if it does)

plz leave your ticked off ego at the door when discussing plane performance

cause Pilot Skill has zero relevance here

92SqnGCJimbo
12-26-2004, 06:27 PM
badsight & stigler.... the original argument was that the new f2a is the turning champ...this can be interpreted in a few ways.... the main ones i see is that it can only be considered this due to online pilot skill and a cocked up fm....

i think that is what tagerts after meaning....
besides any plane can be deadly if u have it in the right place at the right time... part of the reason the raf won the bob was because of radar which meant that the raf could get its planes into a favourable position....

so stigler and badsight the pair of u back off yer high horses.. especially u stigler... u really need to chill with the attitude and tagert b4 u reply back off as well.. and call it quits b4 everyone is banned...kk

oh btw did everyone have a good x-mas

its good to be back on il-2.....

Stiglr
12-26-2004, 07:37 PM
Well, history shows us that the Brewster was in NO WAY a better turner than a Zero. That's exhibit one.

No one has determined without a doubt that the IL-2 FM supports this, but some players have said that it does. So, most of the posters were simply telling the original poster that he's out of his mind if he thinks a Zero is being outturned (or in any way outclassed) by a lowly Buffalo.

So, where does TAGERT get off with his usual "where's my numbers??" **** (none of which he ever supplies, as usual)? We have history on our side, and all he has is one half-arsed statistic that says ONE Navy pilot managed to down a Zero with a Brewster. Whoopdeedoo.

GerritJ9
12-28-2004, 02:26 AM
You are forgetting that there were others who downed Zeros (and Ki43s) with the Brewster- the USN pilot's achievement was not unique. Commonwealth and KNIL pilots also shot down Zeros while flying the Brewster.
Each aeroplane has its strengths and weaknesses vs its opponent. Yes, the A6M2 and Ki43 could outclimb and outturn the Brewster (and F4F for that matter), and the Zero had those 20mm guns. Against that, the Brewster could outdive both, was faster than the Ki43, about as fast as the A6M2 and was more ruggedly built than either of its opponents. Plus it had a heavier armament than the Ki43's two popguns.

Abbuzze
12-28-2004, 02:37 AM
Don´t know in RL,
BUT the Brewster in FB was allways a rea good turner... I allways outturnd zeros with it since I can remember!
It seems that it needed to be a "real" american plane to be extensive flow! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 02:50 AM
Well i think the plane is only as good as its pilot..in Finnish airforce during wwII
the brewster had 65-1 kill ratio...
and they were up against anything from I-16:s to
p-38:s
point being... you can do well even if you have inferior plane... as long as you know how to fly it right!

TheGozr
12-28-2004, 09:01 AM
The cockpit zoom is a joke in this airplane.. it look so bad it's a shame..

Eraser_tr
12-28-2004, 10:01 AM
stiglr you're locked into the idea that because it has a bad historical reputation that it is an exceptionally poor aircraft. It's performance may have been lackluster, but pilot skill makes a huge difference in a battle. The pilot really makes more difference than the plane. The F2A definetly couldn't turn with a zero, but neither could the F4F or planes from the same timeframe. And TnBing in a BnZ plane generally doesn't work out regardless of the plane matchup.

Did you read the paragraphs in the scanned image above? the pilots that got stuck with the brewster were mostly inexperienced, fighting a larger more experienced force with the best aircraft around at the time.

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 10:07 AM
This is a theme in the early-war pacific. Japanese pilots were among the best in the world - early in the war their training was simply phenomenal and they had much combat experience before they encountered americans. The Brewster and P39 both sufferred from this poor tactical situation - as did the p40. Replacement coincided with improved training and tactics and numbers. Early 39s were also - first version aircraft - subject to bugs, hastily assembled on site and, as mentioned - flown by inexperienced pilots using antiquated air combat doctrine against an opponent with superior training and experience in a very good aircraft and, usually - with tactical advantage because they were on the offensive early on. All these factors hit the brewster as well - though it was not a stellar performer by any measure.

The tendancy to attribute everything to the hardware worked both ways - I read an account by a naval officer who estimated the zero as having a maximum speed in the area of 500mph!

p1ngu666
12-28-2004, 12:03 PM
irl, the brewster was truely outclassed.
i have a distinct feeling the production ones where worse than the ones they sent for testing.

im pretty sure that the zero was considered the faster by pilots...

GerritJ9
12-28-2004, 01:12 PM
Outnumbered, yes- odds of 3 to 1 in the favour of the Japanese weren't uncommon in the early stages of the Pacific War. But does that automatically mean outclassed? Hardly. It suited the powers that be very well that the Buff was a convenient scapegoat. But defending Malaya (a country the size of England) with only 170 Buffs was a ridiculous idea, just as ridiculous as 72 Buffs for the whole of the Netherlands East Indies.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:29 PM
Salute

The only area where the F2A2 should outdo the Zeros is in high speed handling and max dive speed.

In any kind of low speed turning contest, the F2A2 should be dead meat.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:37 PM
Salute

Excerpt from an secret Royal Australian Air Force report on the fighting in Malaya and Singapore. The author was Squadron Leader W.J. Harper, commander of 453 Squadron RAAF and later of the combined 21/453 Squadron.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

(Paragraphs)

30. The Buffalo aircraft with which both Squadrons were equipped were slow and less manoeuvrable than the Japanese aircraft with whom they came in contact, and who outnumbered them considerably. Before the Japanese war had started we were given no useful intelligence information on the enemy aircraft, the only information made available to use were some silhouettes of early Japanese biplanes, which resulted in both Units going into battle with a very wrong impression of the opponent they were going to meet. This was a very serious matter as it completely upset all the tactics that had been planned, thereby giving the enemy Air Force the initiative. Our pilots could not dog fight nor use dive and zoom tactics, and expect to get the better of the enemy fighters, who also had an appreciable advantage in the climb owing to their better power to weight ratio. A further serious setback was that above 14,000 feet the pilots had to pump his petrol to his engine continually by a hand pump if he wished to use more than about half throttle setting; this state of affairs made air combat a very uneven match.

31. I had decided at Kuala Lumpur to reduce the disadvantages of the Buffalo as much as possible, and on my return to Singapore I arranged for all aircraft to be stripped of as much surplus weight as possible. By reducing the petrol load and ammunition and replacing two of the four .5 guns with .303, we reduced the load by almost 900 lbs, thereby improving the performance in combat appreciably. However, not all aircraft were modified as there was a considerable amount of normal work to be done and we had no assistance beyond our ground crews.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:41 PM
Salute

Details on the combat at Midway:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

VMF-221 at the Battle of Midway
by Santiago A. Flores

VMF-221 was formed in July 1941 at San Diego, California. In December 1941 the unit was moved to Hawaii, Ewa MCAS. On December 25th , 1941, 14 F2A-3's of VMF-221 took off from the "Saratoga" CV-3 to land on Midway Island. Originaly formed part of the relief force for Wake Island.

On March 28th,1942 8 more F2A-3 were offloaded from the Seaplane Tender "Curtiss" AV-3 for the unit at Midway, and finally 7 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats were delivered from the Aircraft Ferry "Kitty Hawk" APV-1 on May 26th, 1942.

The following is number of listing of the personnel and the aircraft of VMF-221, that participated in aerial combat in the defense of Midway Island on the morning of June 4th, 1942.

FIRST DIVISION (F2A-3)



Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-1 01518 Maj. Floyd B. Parks USMC MIA
MF-2 01548 2Lt. Eugene P. Madole USMCR MIA
MF-3 01525 Capt. John R. Alvord USMC MIA
MF-4 01537 2Lt. John M. Butler USMCR MIA
MF-5 01569 2Lt. David W. Pinkerton Jr. USMCR MIA
MF-6 01552 2Lt. Charles S. Hughes USMCR Did not engage,
Turned back due
Engine problems


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-7 01552? Capt. Daniel J. Hennessey USMC MIA
MF-8 01541 2Lt. Ellwood Q. Lindsay USMCR MIA
MF-9 01524 Capt. Herbert T. Merrill USMC Bailed out WIA
MF-10 01528 2Lt. Thomas W. Benson USMCR MIA
MF-11 01568 Capt. Phillip R. White USMC Survived
MF-12 01542 2Lt. John D. Lucas USMCR MIA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-13 01562 Capt. Kirk Armistead USMC Survived
MF-14 01563 2Lt. William B. Sandoval USMCR MIA
MF-15 01553 Capt. William C. Humberd USMC Survived
MF-16 01523 2Lt. Williams V. Brooks USMCR WIA
MF-17 01521 2Lt. Charles M .Kunz USMCR WIA
MF-18 01559 2Lt. Martin E. Mahannah USMCR KIA (his body washed
up later)
23 (F4F-3) 3989 2Lt. Walter W. Swansberger USMCR MIA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTH DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-19 01520 Capt. Robert E. Curtin USMC MIA
MF-20 01550 2Lt. Darrell D. Irwin USMCR Survived


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH DIVISION (F4F-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
22 4008 Capt. John F. Carey USMC WIA
24 4000 Capt. Marion E. Carl USMC Survived
25 3997 2Lt. Clayton M. Canfield USMCR Survived
26 4006 Capt. Francis P. McCarthy USMC MIA
27 2532 2Lt. Roy A. Corry USMC Survived
28 1864 2Lt.Hyde Phillips USMCR Did not engage;
a/c out of order.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Losses for June 4th, 1942 for VMF-221:
Aircraft: 12 F2A-3, 2 F4F-3
Pilots: 13 MIA, 1 KIA, 4 WIA 4

Aircraft in Commission on June 6th, 1942
F2A-3 MF-6, MF-11 and MF-21
F4F-3 24, 27, and 28

AERIAL VICTORIES CLAIMED BY THE PILOTS OF VMF-221,
April- June 1942, Midway Island
April 10th, 1942
Capt. James L. Neefuss (211-MF-1) Mavis Flying Boat
June 4th, 1942
Capt. Clayton M. Canfield (F4F-3 #25) Aichi 99 DB
Capt. John F. Carey (F4F-3 #22) Aichi 99 DB
Capt. Marion E. Carl (F4F-3 #24) A6M Zero; +2 A6M Zeros Dam.
2Lt. Roy A. Corry Jr. (F4F-3 #27) A6M Zero; Aichi 99 DB
Capt. James P. McCarthy (F4F-3 #26) A6M Zero
Capt. William C. Humberd (F2A-3 MF-15) B5N2 Bomber; A6M Zero; B5N2 Bomber Dam.
Capt. Kirk Armistead (F2A-3 MF-13) Aichi 99 DB Prob.
2Lt. Charles M. Kunz (F2A-2 MF-17) 2 Aichi 99 DB
Capt. Philip R. White (F2A-3 MF-11) Aichi 99 DB; Aichi 99 DB Dam.

Atomic_Marten
12-28-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeerHunterUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
It does not outturn the Zero. Try it online with a human flying the Zero and you will see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or even worse the dreaded Ki-43, that turns like a terrier chasing its tail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. On one occasion(offline), when fighting Australian Cobras, I have actually made turn so tight (I turned inside his circle) that he end up at my dead 6, and AI Cobra promptly shot me down.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:45 PM
Salute

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Here are the combat reports of the VMF-221 Buffalo and Wildcat pilots during the Battle of Midway, kindness of Mark E. Horan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statement of Capt. Kirk Armistead, USMC

My airplane was an F2A-3, Bureau number 01562. My guns were loaded with 2 tracers, 2 armor piercing, 1 ball and 1 incendiary every six rounds.

While on standby on the morning of June 4, 1942, the air raid alarm was sounded at 0555. As our engines were turning up, we did not hear the alarm: but inquired, and found that it had been sounded. At approximately 0602 we took off. My division consisted of six F2A-3 airplanes, piloted by myself, Lt. Sandoval, Capt. Humberd, Lt. Brooks, Lt. Kunz, and Lt. Mahannah. Capt. Humberd was leading the second section, and Lt. Kunz was leading the third section. I climbed the division to 5,000 feet at which time the base station instructed me to climb to 12,000 feet and vector 310o. I then received instructions to vector 320o. at about 0620 I heard Capt. Carey transmit "Tally-ho' followed by hawks at angels 14, supported by fighters. I then started climbing, and sighted the enemy at approximately 14,000 feet at a distance of 5 to 7 miles out, and approximately 2 miles to my right. I immediately turned to a heading of about 70o and continued to climb. I was endeavoring to get a position above and ahead of the enemy and come down out of the sun. however, I was unable to reach this point in time. I was at 17,000 feet when I started my attack. The target consisted of five divisions of from 5 to 9 planes each, flying in division Vees. I figured this group to consist of from 30 to 40 dive bombers of the Aichi Type 99 SE DB. I was followed in column by five F2A-3 fighters and one F4F-3 fighter, pilot unknown. I made a head on approach from above at a steep angle and at very high speed on the fourth enemy division which consisted of five planes. I saw my incendiary bullets travel from a point in front of the leader, up thru his plane and back through the planes on the left wing of the Vee. I continued in my dive, and looking back, saw two or three of those planes falling in flames. Some of the planes in my division centered their attack on the fifth enemy division. After my pullout, I zoomed back to an altitude of 14,000 feet, at this time I noticed another group of the same type bombers following along in their path. I looked back over my shoulder and about 2,00 feet below and behind me I saw three fighters in column, climbing up towards me, which I assumed to be planes of my division. However, they climbed at a very high rate, and a very steep path. When the nearest plane was about 500 feet below and behind me I realized that it was a Japanese Zero Fighter. I kicked over in a violent split S and received 3-20 MM shells, one in the right wing gun, one in the right wing root tank, and one in the top left side of the engine cowling. I also received about 20-7.7 off a portion of the aileron, which mangled the tab on the aileron, and sawed off a portion of the aileron. I continued in a vertical dive at full throttle, corkscrewing to the left, due to the effect of the damaged aileron. At about 3,000 feet, I started to pull out, and managed to hold the plane level at an altitude of 500 feet. As the speed decreased, the stick pressure became more manageable, and by giving it full left tab, at a low speed, the pressure was negligible.

I headed back towards the area, and called the base radio, asking them if I could land because of a damage aileron. I received their "Roger, wait". I circled the area at a distance of about 15 miles, and saw that the area was under heavy attack, so I proceeded to a spot up-sun from the area; and circled.

At approximately 0740 I heard the base radio call the fifth division and advise them to land, refuel, and re-arm. I could hear no reply, so asked for permission to land. I received an affirmative reply, so headed towards the area. I gave two recognition signals, circled the field, and was not fired at by anti-aircraft batteries. My hydraulic system had been damaged, but the landing gear and flaps operated normally. The right brake was inoperative. A successful landing was effected at approximately 0800.

The Zero fighter is exceptionally maneuverable, with an astounding rate of climb. It is capable of closing the range on an F2A-3 in a climb to such an extent that it seems useless to even try to make more than one pass at any target. It is my belief that they can climb at least 5,000 feet a minute, as these fighters climbing up at me were pointed at an angle of 50o in their climb.

I do not believe that they were zooming after a dive, because I am normally certain that at the time I attacked the bombers there were no enemy fighters above 14,000 feet. In fact, I believe that they were below the bombers at that time.

The Zero Fighter is faster in level flight than the F2A-3. It is much more maneuverable that the F2A-3. It can out climb the F2A-3. It has more fire power than the F2A-3.

In general, the Japanese airplanes appear to be very vulnerable to .50 cal. Gun fire. They burst into flame in nearly all cases upon receiving any bullets.

It is my belief that the use of incendiary bullets greatly increases the effectiveness of attack against Japanese air craft.


Statement of Second Lieutenant William. V. Brooks USMCR:

I was pilot of F2A-3, Bureau number 01523, Our division under Capt. Armistead was on standby duty at he end of the runway on the morning of June 4, 1942, from 0415 until 0615. At about 0600, the alarm sounded and we took off. My division climbed rapidly, and I was having a hard time keeping up. I discovered afterwards that although my wheels indicator and hydraulic pressure indicator both registered "wheels up", they were in reality about 1/3 of the way down. We sighted the enemy at about 14,000 feet, I would say that there were 40 to 50 planes. At this time Lt. Sandoval was also dropping back. My radio was at this time putting out no volume, so I could not get the message from Zed. At 17,000 feet, Capt. Armistead led the attack followed closely by Capt. Humberd. They went down the left of the Vee , leaving two planes burning. Lt. Sandoval went down the right side of the formation and I followed. One of us got a plane from the right side of the Vee. At this time, I had completely lost sight if my division. As I started to pull up for another run on the bombers, I was attacked by two fighters. Because my wheels being jammed 1/3 way down, I could not out dive these planes, but managed to dodge them and fire a burst or so into them as they went past me and as I headed for the water. As I circled the island, the anti-aircraft fire drove them away. My tabs, instruments and cockpit were shot up to quite an extent at this time and I was intending to come in for a landing.

It was at this time that I noticed that a important feature in their fighting. I saw two planes dog-fighting over in the east, and decoded to go help my friend if at all possible. My plane was working very poorly, and my climb was slow. As I neared the fight both planes turned on me. It was then that I realized I had been tricked in a sham battle put on by two Japs and I failed to recognize this because of the sun in my eyes. Then I say I was out-numbered, I turned and made a fast retreat for the island, collecting a goodly number of bullets on the way. After one of these planes had been shaken, I managed to get a good burst into another as we passed head-on when I turned into him. I don't believe this ship could have gotten back to his carrier, because he immediately turned away and started north and down. I again decided to land, but as I circled the island I saw two Japs in a Brewster. Three of my guns were jammed, but I cut across the island, firing as I went with one gun. But I could Not get there in time to help the American flier and as soon as the Brewster had gone into the water I came in for a landing at approximately 0715 (estimated).

It is my belief that the Japs have a very maneuverable and very fast ship in their 00 fighters, plenty of fire-power . They can turn inside the Brewster, but of course on the speed I would be unable to say as my wheels were jammed about 1/3 way down all during the fight, causing considerable drag.

My plane was damaged somewhat, having 72 bullet and cannon holes in it, and I had a very slight flash wound on my left leg.

It is my express desire that Lt. Sandoval, deceased be logged up with the bomber which one of us got in out first run.

Statement of Second Lieutenant Clayton Melbourne Canfield, USMCR:

I took off as wingman on Captain Carl at approximately 0557, June 4, 1942, we joined on Captain Carey and were vectored out three hundred-ten degrees. The three of us climbed to fourteen thousand feet on the vector, during which I was motioned to fly number three on Captain Carey. About nine minutes out, Captain Carl began to drop back. At 0612, Captain Carey made a wide two hundred-seventy degree turn; then a ninety degree diving turn while reporting to Zed, "Tally ho, large formation of bombers," a slight pause, then, "Accompanied by fighters." The bombers were at approximately twelve thousand feet. I slid into a column on Captain Carey during the run, where I stayed until the engagement was over. The run was high side from the right. I fired at the number three plane in the number three section until it exploded and went down in flames. In the middle of the run I saw a column of fighters diving on us from the left. There was no return fire from the bombers that I could see. Captain Carey pulled out of the dive and made a high wing over for another attack when we were attacked by their fighters. He the dived at about a forty degree angle and headed for a large cloud about five miles away. I momentarily lagged looking for planes following us and went around the cloud the opposite direction from Captain Carey to have a better look behind. I saw a large trail of smoke and the bomber burning on the ocean, but no fighters, and then joined upon him again. He headed in the general direction of the islands on an unsteady course. Finally I observed that he was badly wounded and he turned the lead over to me. He kept dropping and falling behind and I kept throttling back so he could keep up. When I had lead us to a two hundred-seventy degree bearing from the island, he called me and instructed me to join on him again. We had about forty gallons of gasoline left, including seventeen gallons of reserve. We rolled the wheels down outside of the reef and made our approach to the field from the two hundred-seventy degree bearing. I made a normal approach, but had no flaps, and when the wheels touched the ground the landing gear collapsed. The island was under heavy attack, with fighters strafing runways and a patrol boat. When the plane had stopped sliding, I jumped out and ran for a trench, while a plane was strafing in the direction of my abandoned plans or the patrol boat.

All during the above encounter, I flew very close on Captain Carey, making all runs and dives in column. There were one hundred rounds gone from three of my guns and ninety from the other. At least one-half of these were used up during two test fires I had made that morning.

My plane was hit on the right elevator, left wing and flap, and just ahead of the tail wheel by twenty millimeter cannon. There was also a thirty caliber hole through the tail wheel and one that entered the hood on the right side about six inches up, passed just over the left rudder paddle and damaging the landing gear.

Captain Carey's and my engagement was of very short duration, thereby limiting my impression. However, I am positive that the bomber I shot down was not an Aichi type ninety-nine, because when this bomber exploded, I was flat, at about a one hundred forty degree angle, and I am positive that the landing gear was retracted. However, the planes were painted dark and the light was bad, so I couldn't tell the type of ship, but they were larger than our dive bombers. After talking to observers from the island who were observing through field glasses, they were of a twin engine class, because they confirmed that the plans was missing in the afore said position.

During this encounter I flew a F4F-3 type plane, bureau number 3997.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:46 PM
Salute

(continued)

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Statement of Captain John Frank Carey, USMC:

We had been on the alert before daylight. Then, the alarm came at about 6:30 A.M. We all got into the air and there was a little mix-up among the Grummans as the planes took to the air. From the radar we were directed up to three hundred ten_. Many bandits at twelve thousand feet altitude. We went out there and contacted them and there were about nineteen carrier dive-bombers escorted by approximately ten "Zero" fighters. The dive-bombers were in four and five plan "V's" and the "Zero" fighters were about two thousand feet above them. There were only three of us.

I went ahead after the leader of the division of bombers and while making the first run, an overhead approach on the division leader of the dive-bomber formation, I got a bullet through the wind shield but continued my attack and shot down the division leader. Then I made an above side approach on the center plane of the formation, hit the leader and think I got one of them. Just then I got shot through the right knee and left leg. I kept going right down, got out of my dive and returned to Midway. I returned with great difficulty and attempted to make a landing which ended in a ground loop as I had a flat tire and could not control the plane because of the wound in my leg.

In talking it over with the other pilots who returned they invariably had tangled with two to five "Zero" fighters and were unable to shake them. The only maneuver which would evade them would be a vertical dive and then a pull-out at high speed just over the water.

The "Zero" fighters out-maneuvered, out-performed and out-climbed the Brewsters and Grummans in over respect. The only advantage the Brewsters and Grummans has was in armor.

While the fighters were attempting to stop the dive-bombers and intercept the oncoming fighters, the Scouts and B-17's had gone on out farther to attempt to intercept the surface craft.


Statement of Captain Marion Eugene Carl, USMC.

At 0600, 4 June, 1942, I took off with my division leader, Captain John Frank Carey. I was flying a F4F-3, bureau No. 4000. When I noticed his wing man missing, I moved up into No. 2 position on his wing and my wing man, Second Lieutenant C. M. Canfield, moved up into No. 3 position on Captain Carey.

Soon after taking off we received a vector of 310o, angle 12. A few minutes later we were told to vector 320o. When about 30 miles out at 14,000', Captain Carey made a right turn. I had been having trouble keeping my position and had dropped behind several hundred yards. Coming out of the turn, Captain Carey reported a large formation of bombers accompanied by fighters, then dived on the bombers. I saw the fighters, three divisions of five each, moving up to screen the bombers, so I made a high side on one of the fighters which was some 2,000' below me. My fire passed through my target and I pulled away and up. When I looked back to see the results of my attack, I was surprised to see several Zero Fighters already swinging into position on my tail. I headed straight down at full throttle and they gave up the chase. I leveled off at 3,000'.

I again climbed and headed for my base. At 20,000' I leveled off and looked for another target. Not seeing anything, I dropped to 12,000' and approached within two miles of my base. I saw three Zero Fighters at a low altitude that were making a wide circle so I came down in a 45o dive with almost full throttle and had barely enough speed to drop in astern and to the inside of the circle made by one of the Zero Fighters. I gave him a long burst, until he fell off on one wing and when last seen was out of control headed almost straight down with smoke streaming from the plane. The other two fighters had out across and were closing on me so I headed for a cloud. One fighter gave up the pursuit, but the other came on and started firing. He fired steadily for several seconds, but was shooting low, for I could see the tracers going by one both side and slightly below me. Finally I felt the impact of bullets striking the throttle, throw the plane into a skid, and he over ran me. I raked him with gun fire as he went by. He slid across in front and below me, and I shoved over sharply and pressed the trigger at the same time, but evidently the pushover was too sharp for none of my guns would fire. I dropped down astern the fighter and through a cloud. I saw no enemy plane thereafter.

I climbed to 10,000' in the vicinity of my base and a few minutes later at 0720 received an order to land. I landed at approximately 0730, having managed to clear but one of my four guns. I used a total of a little over 300 rounds.

In my opinion, I shot down one Zero Isento Ki heavy Fighter and inflicted unknown damage to two more of the same type.

Statement of Second Lieutenant Roy Alvin Corry, USMC.

On the morning of June 4, 1942, Captain McCarthy and I were preparing to land after a routine patrol we received a message from radio telling of enemy planes approaching the island from a bearing of 310o true at a distance of approximately 35 miles.

As we were very short on fuel, we landed immediately, serviced our ships and took off.

We were at 8,000 feet heading for the enemy bombers which were around 12,000 or 15,000 feet when we were attacked by eight 00 Fighters. We were immediately broken up by the first pass, and from than on we were fighting singly.

Captain McCarthy shot down one fighter immediately, and I shot one down on his tail.

I lost sight of Captain McCarthy shortly after due to the fact that I had three 00 Fighters on my tail. Being unable to out maneuver them, I attacked a dive bomber that was leaving the area of Eastern Island. I fired a short burst and the dive bomber (Aichi 99) rolled over and crashed in the ocean.

By this time my tanks were all leaking badly and the fighters were shooting my plane up very effectively. I managed to stay low on the water and get back to the field safely. I was flying a F4F-3 type plane, bureau No. 2537.

I observed two F2A-3's shot down during the conflict, one pilot balled out and was strafed.

The 00 Fighter is by far the most maneuverable plane that exists at the present time. You cannot compare them with our service type ships. The 00 Fighter is apparently very strong in construction, being able to withstand as much stress and strain as our own planes. The Japanese planed seem to be very vulnerable if you are fortunate enough to bring your guns to bear.

I expended a total of about 20 rounds out of each gun.


Statement of second lieutenant Charles S. Hughes, USMCR:

The Morning of June 4, 1942, I warmed up my plane at approximately 0350. At 0530 (exactly by my watch) I received word to start the engine again. At approximately 0605 we took off, at five thousand feet I started having trouble keeping with my division, as the engine started vibrating and losing power. At sixteen thousand feet I was lagging badly and the engine was so rough I concluded it would be suicide to try to fight the plane. My decision was to get the plane back to its revetment where it could be readied to hit them later. I carried out this plan and had the plane in the revetment at about 0630. Minute later the horizontal bombers arrived.

The anti-aircraft batteries went into action as soon as the enemy was in range and got two out of the eleven that stated their run on Sand Island. I saw the bombs released over San Island and then had to hug ground as six planes released their bombers over Eastern Island and they landed close to my position. The dive bombers came out of the sun a few minute later. They appeared to be Aichi 99's. The Zeroes came in strafing immediately after word. I saw two Brewsters trying to fight the Zeroes. One was shot down and the other was saved by ground fires covering his tail. Both looked like they were tied to a string while the zeroes made passes at them. I believe that our man with planes even half as good as the zeroes would have stopped the raid completely.

Statement of Captain William Carter Humberd, USMC:

While in the standby division on morning of June 4, 1942, the air raid alarm sounded at 0559. Our division took off at approximately 0605. In our division of six planes, Capt. Kirk Armistead is division leader, 2nd Lt. William B. Sandoval his wingman, myself section leader of second section with 2nd Lt. William V. Brooks as wingman, 2nd Lt. Charles Murphy Kunz 3rd section leader with 2nd Lt. Martin Edward Mahannah his wingman. We took off immediately after fourth division and started gaining altitude in direction of approaching enemy which was 310 degrees, altitude 12,000 feet given by base radio.

Sight contact was made of enemy formations at approximately 12,000 feet bearing about 30 degrees to port and distance of about 10-15 miles. We continued climbing to 17,000 feet, still keeping the enemy slightly to our port, then when in position of about 3,500 to 4,000 feet above and still to port we made attack, about 30-35 miles bearing 320 degrees from islands.

By time to make attack, my division leaders wingman had dropped back some in which case I was second to attack. I followed division leader in a high side approach shooting down one (1) bomber in this approach, then coming up for high side approach on other side I again attacked, thinking I might have shot down another bomber in this approach. I again attacked, thinking I might have shot down another bomber in this approach. I came up on other side and started another approach when, about half way through run, I heard a loud noise and turning around I saw a large hole in hood of my plane and also two type 00 navy fighters on me about 200 yards eastern, then I immediately pushed over in steep dive in which one (1) followed me. I descended to water level in trying to gain distance on the fighter, the plane staying with me; I stayed at water level with full throttle gaining distance slowly until I decided the distance was great enough to turn on 300 yard distant and the plane caught on fire and out of control dived in the water. By this time I was approximately 40 miles from first attack and started gaining altitude up to 10,000 feet. My fuel and ammunition were fairly low, about three-fourths exhausted, and I called to see if field was clear for landing, in which case I received an "affirmative". In the meantime, while climbing for altitude, I discovered my hydraulic fluid had been lost and my flaps and landing gear would not lower so I used emergency system and the wheels lowered, then made proper approach to field and landed. After refueling and rearming, I again took off and while I knew my wheels would not retract, I intended going some distance from field to remain for a period when orders to land were given to all fighting planes.

My plane was a F2A-3, Bureau Number 01553, loaded with 1300 rounds of .50 cal. Ammunition, one ball, 2 armor piercing. The attack was made at approximately 0625 and I used approximately 400-600 rounds of ammunition; the final landing being about 0745.

The enemy formations were of a Vee consisting of about five to nine planes each, there being about 4 to 5 of such formations in group we attacked. I don't know what formation the fighters used or where they were as the first I knew of their presence was the loud burst in my plane and turning, saw them. The type of bombers seems to correspond to the type 99 Aichi (navy), and the fighters were navy type 00.

After my second approach, I saw about four or five planes going down in flames and only identified one as our own, all this was just a glance on my part. Their fighters seemed to out maneuver us in most all respects except n my case, I out dived the one after me and gained distance at sea-level. Frankly, I think the F2A-3 does not compare with their type 00 fighters whatsoever.

My plane had a number of holes in it, three or four making the left beam tank unusable. Had two large holes in fuselage of what appeared to be 20 mm size. No apparent damage to plane except for left beam tank and hydraulic lines broken.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:47 PM
Salute

(continued)

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Statement of Second Darrell D. Irwin, USMCR.

I was pilot of a Brewster Fighter, F2A-3, Bureau No. 01550, on 4 June, 1942. The air raid siren sounded about 0600, and Captain R. L. Curtin and I, the two of us being the entire fourth division, took off approximately at 0603. I flew No. 2 position on Capt. Curtin, and together we followed another division of five Brewsters to 14,000, on heading about 000?. About 20 miles out, at 0625, we see, about 2,000' below, two division of single engine Japanese bombers in large Vee formation. Each bomber division contained from 7 to 9 planes. The division of Brewsters in front of us made an overhead approach followed by Captain Curtin and myself, after which I never again saw Captain Curtin or any of the first division. During the pull-out of my run, I saw one bomber in flames, presumably shot by some one in the first division. I, then., climbed to about 16,500' looking for my division leader. I was just preparing for another run on the bombers, when I saw a Japanese fighter already on my tail. I immediately dove to lose the fighter, attaining speed of at least 300 knots, pulling out about 3,500'. The Japanese fighter was still on my tail and that time shot most of my left aileron away. I dove again to about 500' and headed for Eastern Island, knowing I could not maneuver my plane well enough for combat. All this time, the Japanese fighter, supported by at least on other fighter, continued making runs on me, each time going by me and making steep wing-overs for another run. All this time I carried full throttle, making about 240 to 260 knots. Their gunnery was very good and I doubt if on any run that they missed getting my plane. On several occasion, I heard bullets strike the armor plate in back of my seat which is only shoulder high, and several times I ducked my head as far as I could in the cockpit when a fighter was firing on me. I managed to land my plane with my head still in the cockpit and the Japanese still making runs on me. I landed approximately at 0650, during full scale dive bombing attack.

On no occasion, did I have the distance between the Japanese fighter and myself to turn back and try any dog-fighting. The Japanese fighter, which I recognized to be a Zero Fighter, apparently had greater speed, much more my plane has several cannon holes in it, although my right wing tank which was struck by cannon fire did not burn, but was hot enough to scorch and blister paint on the wing and aileron. I expended approximately 170 rounds from my four guns, and the ammunition was two armor piercing, two ball, and one tracer. The Japanese had little regard for our ground anti-air-craft fire, which almost always burst behind the plane fired upon. I saw only one fighter shot down by anti-aircraft fire all he was strafing the field from about 100'.


Statement of second lieutenant Charles Murphy Kunz, USMCR:

I was pilot of F2A-3, Bureau number 01521, on the morning of June 4, 1942. Our division was led by Capt. Armistead with 2nd Lt. Sandoval flying on his wing. Leading the 2nd Section in the division was Capt. Humberd with 2nd Lt. Brooks on his wing. I was leading the 3rd section in the division with 2nd Lt. Mahannah flying on my wing.

Our division had touched down to end of #2 runway to go on standby at 0515. We had all cut our engines, and at approximately 0545, Lt. Musselman, the duty officer, drove down in the squadron truck and told us to turn our engines up and await take off instructions. No one in our division had heard the alarm sound and several sections had taxied down and taken off. Our division was in the air at 0602 when the radar vectored us out on a heading of 310 degrees, angle 12, and very shortly the radar vectored us to a heading of 320 degree. We had been climbing at almost full throttle and sighted about 40 on any planes in 5 to 9 plane divisions. Shortly after reaching 17,000 ft., there was one long F4F-3 thought to be 2nd. Lt. Swansberger flying in my section at about 20 miles. I saw Capt. Armistead make his attack and Capt. Humberd. My attack was a high speed over head approach. I was firing at the 5th the last division and saw 2 planes in flames in the 4th division very likely shot by Armistead and Humberd. It is my belief that Lt. Sandoval was drawn flat in his approach and was shot by enemy back seat gunner. I say my target burst into flames and pull out formation.

After the initial attack, our division was completely separated and I zoomed up on the starboard side of the enemy Aichi type 99 V SE DB formation. I was about 2000 ft above the formation when I made my 2nd attack. I used the above side approach and was firing short burst frequently when this target caught fire. The pilot on the port outboard side of the Vee pulled out of formation to apparently let the plane on fire next to him get out. I started firing short burst at long range at the plane that left the formation when I was attacked. I was at an altitude of about 9,000 ft., and shoved over in a dive trying to shake the plane on my tail until I was about 20 feet from the water. I was making radical turns hoping the pilot couldn't get steadied on me. I glanced out of the rear and saw that it was a type 00 ISENTO KI Navy fighter. I continued flying on a rapid turning course at full throttle when I was hit in the head by a glancing bullet. After he fired a few short burst he left as I had been in a general direction of 205o heading away from the island. My plane was badly shot up and I knew it could not be used in another attack due to radio being shot and hydraulic system out. I flew for 10 or 15 minutes on this heading and circled until 0730 at which time I came in to the island and made my proper identifying approach and landed. I landed at 0750. I was very dizzy due to wound in head immediately went to dispensary. I expanded 312 rounds from 3 of my guns. In my opinion the 00 fighter has been far underestimated. I think it is probably on of the finest fighters in the present war. As for the F2A-3, (or Brewster trainer) it should be in Miami as a training plane, rather than be used as a first line fighter.

Statement of Captain Herbert Thompson Merrill, USMC:

We had taken off at 3:50 a.m. on an early morning patrol and had returned about 5:30 a.m. We were all standing by and about 6:30 the siren went. We took off in a six plane division, rendezvoused at 4,000 feet and then to vector 310; ten miles and 10,000 feet above. We climbed up to 12,000 feet and were then told to go back to 310 and intercept the bombers at 12,000 feet. Went up to about 15,000 feet to the bombers formation which had nine in one group, three in another and five in the other group. They were in very, very tight formation. The three planes division was leading.

I went in and made an overhead run from about 3,000 feet above. Then I went down. My plane was hit by bullets when pulling out. My right wing and instrument panel was struck and I lost partial control. Then I dove again and headed towards the reef. They hit again and the third time the plane caught fire and I was thrown clear of the plane. I opened my parachute and then landed in the water. I swam for about two hours and finally made the reef. Then after about a half hour I was picked up by a PT boat. Evidently the "Zero" fighters dove on me when I made my approach to the bombers and I could do nothing to evade them.

The "Zero" fighters were superior to the Grummans in speed and performance.

Statement of Second Lieutenant John C. Musselman, USMCR:

The morning of June 4th I was Duty Officer due to my plans being out of commission. At 0559 the air raid siren sounded and all the planes immediately took off. At 0615 Captain McCarthy and Second Lieutenant Corry landed to re-gas, having been on patrol since 0400. At 0618 Second Lieutenant Hughes landed with motor trouble. At 0625 Captain McCarthy and Second Lieutenant Corry took off. I immediately notified the Command Post and at the same time noticed enemy bombers approaching Sand Island. At 0630 enemy bombers hit Eastern Island, I having just made the nearest slit trench. The bombing attack lasted for approximately two minutes, after which I ran to a small two-can dug-out nearby due to the lack of covering in the slit trench. The nearest bombs landed about 100 yards from the Ready Tent causing no damage.

During the strafing attack that followed, Second Lieutenant Phillips and I were in the dug-out. Approximately at 0700 the attack was over. There was no damage to the Ready Tent, and only two holes in the windshield of the squadron truck parked near the tent. There were no injuries or casualties to officers or personnel within 100 yards of the Ready Tent.

What action I witnessed brought out the superiority of the Japanese 00 Fighter over our F2A's and F4F's. The Japanese fighters and dive bombers showed very good skill and daring.

Statement of Second Lieutenant Hyde Phillips, USMCR.

My plane, F4F-3, #28, Bureau number 1864 was out of commission. I stood by the telephone in the ready tent with Lieutenant Musselman.

The bombs started dropping at 0630, at which time I went to a slit trench adjacent to the tent. After the bombing was over I went to the mess hall where, with a detail recruited from men in slit trenches, we extinguished the fires. I found six boxes of Blood Plasma in the mess hall wreckage which I delivered to the sick-bay.

During the action I saw a Brewster Fighter out across the N. E. tip of Eastern Island to help another Brewster. This Brewster was shot down by a Zero Fighter. The pilot baled out and the Zero Fighter, with another, strafed the pilot about three times each.

Zero Fighters outnumbered our fighters, had greater speed, and vastly great maneuverability. The Japanese planes were flown with skill and daring. Brewsters and Grummans were no match for the Zero Fighters.

Island defense were well and cleverly manned. There was no confusion evident during the raid and not a person visible in our sector of the Island, although the AA guns fired at every opportunity.

Statement of Captain Philip Renee White, USMC

At 0600, June 4th, I took off in a F2A-3, bureau number 01568, with Captain Daniel Joseph Hennessy leading the division.

He climbed to twelve thousand feet and circled for two or three minutes and contacted the enemy formations.

Captain Hennessy led us in a attack on the horizontal bombers. There were three formations of nine planes to the formation. After the first pass I lost my wing man and rest of the division. I made a long low fast climb and made a second above side pass, and started for a third, when I saw a Zero Fighter climbing up on my tail very rapidly. I rushed my stick forward as hard as I could and went into a violent dive. When I recovered and looked around, I had lost the Zero Fighter.

I regained my altitude and received a transmission saying that an enemy plane was leaving the area on a heading of 310o. I made a long fast above side pass on this plane which I had spotted. After the pass I saw him waver and make an easy left turn into the water. He was at approximately one thousand feet when I initiated the pass. I believe I shot the pilot. The plane was Aichi 99 Dive Bomber.

I again regained my altitude and saw another Aichi 99 weaving in and out of the clouds, returning to his carrier. I had six thousand feet and gave my Buffalo all the power I could get and just stayed in the same relative position. I finally gained enough to make a pass by nosing over and losing three thousand feet. After my fist pass I slowed down a great deal, and I was able to make another pass quite easily. I believe that in my first pass, I had damaged his engine. After the second pass I got behind him and was going to bore in and found out that I was out of ammunition. I am sure that I shot the rear seat gunner in this plane because he did not fire on me on the third pass, and he could have easily.

I returned to the base and rearmed and took off and later received instructions to land.

The F2A-3 is not a combat airplane. It is inferior to the planes we were fighting in every respect. The F2A-3 has about the same speed as an Aichi 99 Dive Bomber. The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. I estimated the top speed of a Zero Fighter, form what I saw, at better than 450 mile per hour.

It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground.

During the combat I expended 1360 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 01:49 PM
Salute

All of the above material is courtesy this very good Brewster site:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

woofiedog
12-29-2004, 06:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gifThank's RAF74_Buzzsaw... I really enjoyed reading your post's about the Brewster.
Most books start at Pearl Harbor... but then skip to the Coral Sea, leaving out everything in between.
Small pages or paragraph's written about Java, Hong Kong, Burma, and etc etc.
Again Excellent Material... Thank's

F19_Orheim
12-29-2004, 07:19 AM
In my humble opinion Buzzsaw's input highly enlighten this topic... There has been too many "personal thoughts" and clueless theories based on hardly any facts at all in this thread already (no name mentioned). I would say that first hand testmonies are WAY more informative than certain individuals bickering.

Thanx buzz

JG53Frankyboy
12-29-2004, 07:31 AM
keep in mind that at Midway a F2A-3 was in use. not a F2A-2 like we have in game. there is a performance difference, A-3 was much heavier ! nevertheless the F2A-2 was sure also not a classical" winner" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and keep in mind that the RAF was trying to reduce the weight of its B-339Es ( export version of F2A-2 , but much heavier) in Singapore to have a chance vs Oscars and Zeros.

for more Buffalo interests
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

Sakai9745
12-29-2004, 01:46 PM
Just for the benefit of the thread, me and three friends who play online ran some tests between these two planes (we all are of similiar skill level - poor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). It kind of proves that both sides of the coin here are correct:

Planes used were F2A-2 and A6M-21

1v1: Zero holds the edge. In 6 engagements at altitudes ranging from 500m up to 3000m, the A6M-21's maneuverability and climb keeps it out of trouble. 5 of the engagements went to the Zero. Only with height and the chance to dive did the Buffalo have a chance to keep up, and it's single victory was a kill conducted in a head on pass. The fights trended towards descending, spiraling paths - all F2A-2s were killed at low altitude and airspeed.

2v2: More problematic; the Zero still holds the edge, but team tactics give Buffalo drivers a chance to offset their advantage by flying loose formation and using the Thatch Weave. In 6 engagements, Zeroes won 4 - 2 in engagements that lasted a lot longer than the 1v1 contests.

Not definitive, but I wanted to confirm on my own end what everyone has been saying. By the numbers and all things being equal, the Zero has a decided advantage, but pilot skill and tactics can make a huge difference.