Jump to content

Talk:Brewster F2A Buffalo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pedantic correction & comment

As far asa the name goes, I think the aircraft is generally known as the Buffalo, at least in the English speaking world, and we should probably go with common usage, especially as it was largely used by nations other than the US. I removed reference to Zeros in Malaya in 1941 as RAAF RAF RNZAF opposition there was not Zeros, (Oscars yes, but didn't want to add a whole heap about it).

Indeed, yes, there were Zeros at Singapore, just as there were army fighters in the Indies! It's true however that I can find no specific instance of a Buffalo in combat against a Zero.
No, they weren't Zeros. Zero is naval plane, while the opposition of the Britis forces in Malaya consisted of the Japanese Army Air Force. Their opponents have either been Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) or Ki-27 (Nate) planes - which are easily confused with A6M Zero and A5M (Claude).192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Buffalo" is of course the universal name, everywhere but Finland. Even the Marines at Midway called them Buffaloes. (The U.S. Navy never used them in combat.) --Cubdriver 5 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Let me precise that statement a little, they were not called Buffalo during wartime, but nowadays, the aircraft is merely known as the Brewster Buffalo in Finland. --MoRsE 12:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, let me rephrase that, there is no record of the Singapore Buffaloes meeting zeros, except for combat claims of pilots at the time, (while these were generally dismissed I notice some were at least capable of recognising an Oscar). Actually was unuaware of Zeros being involved at all until after Buffaloes were withdrawn but would welcome correction. As far as RNZAF squadron goes, you are quite right to say there was no RNZAF Buffalo squadron as such, I am uncerain whether the RNZAF controlled some of the ex-Singapore Buffaloes temporarily as they did with the Hurricanes, (see list of RNZAF aircraft on Wikipedia or Kiwi Serial numbers web site). 488(NZ) or 488(RNZAF) squadron of the Royal Air Force is frequently referred to as an RNZAF squadron - I have corrected the link so it goes to the entry for this unit, but left it under "RAF". Incidentally we are also missing Japan from the list of users - I know they got at least one airborne, but I'm not sure if it was ex Dutch, RAF or RAAF. :-)

High Attrition from Poor maintenance alone?

The fairly brief para on Buffaloes over Singapore states "The Commonwealth squadrons in Asia suffered high attrition from poor maintenance." While no doubt this is true, I suspect military action by Japan deserves a teensy little bit of credit. Contemporary accounts also seem to indicate the poor standard in which the aircraft were supplied was a major contribution.Winstonwolfe 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the RAF and Commonwealth Buffaloes had originally been part of a Belgian order and were built to Belgian specification, but after Belgium fell in 1940 the order had been taken over by Britain. Allegedly they had been fitted at the factory with reconditioned second-hand DC-2 engines that were substantially down on their rated power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Buffalo Aces

Apart from Geof Fisken who were the other two Commonwealth Buffalo Aces? They should be named. Hugo999 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found some information, but it appears that there are more than just 3 aces on the Buffalo. I'll be adding them in soon. Wolcott 09:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolcott, you added that "two Dutch pilots, Jacob van Helsdingen and August Deibel, became aces on the Buffalo. They both recorded a total of three victories." The standard definition of a flying ace is five victories. Grant | Talk 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Stan, do you think this one should be under Brewster Buffalo? In general, US military aircraft are known by their number rather than their name, but I think this one is an exception. It's far better known under the "Buffalo" name - possibly not in the USA (I'm no expert on th USA) but it's primarily known for its service with foreign operators, in particular the British Empire [British Commonwealth in 1926-49]. (Service? Being thrown into action against fighters that entirely outclassed it, shot it to ribbons, and killed a lot of very brave pilots counts as "service"? Oh well, you know what I mean.) Tannin

I guess I was thinking of it from purely the US point of view, where the naming rule would would disallow "Buffalo" because it's not official. Google shows 800 for "brewster f2a buffalo" leaving just 700 for "brewster f2a" without the "buffalo", and 2300 for "brewster buffalo", which seems pretty definite for what's the most common usage. I'll sleep on it, but moving the page does seem like the right idea. Stan 05:32 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
Change it. They're commonly called Buffalo (the Brit name), but the correct ID is F2A, & as I understand it, the official name is the one used for the page title. Trekphiler 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:AIR does have naming conventions to settle this kind of thing. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Thus, this page should be at Brewster F2A (if we accept "Buffalo" as unofficial, which I'm not too sure about). The conventions don't make exeptions if the plane served in British service or not, as we have F-4 Phantom II and P-51 Mustang. In order to contravene the guidelines, there must be a concensus here to do so, which I don't see as yet. - BillCJ 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, are there exceptions to the general rules on naming aircraft articles? FWIW Bzuk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
BZuk, have you met an aircraft article name for which you couldn't find an exception? (Teasing!) Yes, there are a few, but they are rare (or should be, at least). But in order to have an exception, there must be a good reason to do so, and consensus for the exception. "The British didn't call it that" could be used on many American aircraft, and would end up nullifying the naming conventions altogether. So far, I haven't seen a reason here worth making an exception for. - BillCJ 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never understood why we go with US military designations, unless they are the common name.
The Finns made the most effective use of it and its a Finnish icon, so maybe it should go under Brewster B-239, which is what they usually called it ;-) Grant | Talk 07:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to ask those who set up the guidlines. I imagine that there's archived talk on it somewhere. Being guidelines, they don't have to be followed, but you do need consensus. YOu are also welcome to propose changes to the guidelines, which is really a better way to go than fighting battles article-by-article. That's why the guidleines exist, so we don't have to have the same conversations every time over the same issue. It's usually easier to determine the country of origin than the most significant user, so this is really a better way to go.
There are many guidlines in Wikipedia in general, and WP:AIR in particular that I don't like, but I try to follow them until they are changed, or I can raise a consensus to opt out of the guidleines for a particular article. For now, WP:AIR gives priority to the name of an aircraft in its country of origin, either a company name or military designation. This doesn't just apply to American aircraft, though they do seem to be the names most objected to here.
It's getting to the point that it's almost as absurd as wanting to move American football to Gridiron football because Americans aren't the only ones who play it, but that's another issue for another page. Seriously, I can understand how non-Americans can feel offended because some Americans think everything in the world should be done or spelled the American way. What I don't understand is the attitude that American things or words can't be done or spelled the American way because it might offend someone else in the world. People seems to want Americans to be tolerant of ways that are different, but can't extend the same courtesy to Americans. - BillCJ 08:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the US military hardly used this particular plane, so how could F2A be considered the "common name"? The general rule at WP is common names, not official/original names. Grant | Talk 08:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC):::::You will find it difficult to make the case that the US military "hardly used" the Buffalo since it was the first monoplane USN fighter in operational service. The F2A Buffalo is probably not as easily recognizable as the type name but it is a valid name; having said that, I agree that "Brewster Buffalo" is probably the most widely known appellation and unless there is widespread consensus for a name change, I would be comfortable with that name. FWIW Bzuk 12:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC).
The Common name part doesn't apply here, as the plane is American, and has US miltary designation. This is not a case like the Martin Maryland Martin Baltimore, where they had US military designation (XA-22 and A-30 respectively), but did not see US service or usage in any way beyond simple evaluation. In fact, the "A-30" designation was only assigned for Lend-Lease purposes. I moved the XA-22 Maryland to its current name for those reasons, with discussion. At this point, the Brewster Buffalo name is contrary to the established guidelines, and there was no consensus here or elsewhere to exempt it. Most likely, the page was here before the guidelines were clearly established, and was simply overlooked. As far as I am concered, we need a consensus to keep the non-standard article name, not to move it. - BillCJ 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I vote to move it, retaining "Brewster Buffalo" as redirect (of course). This will help standardize the aircraft articles. Binksternet 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

While I know what the normal rules for aviation articles are, there is a grey area here. At what point does foreign usage take over from official US designations. A "common name" means the name most often used.

This brings me to another point; there is no indication of how many of the supposed "500" served with US Navy or USMC squadrons. Does anyone know? Grant | Talk 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Given what Rlandmann (rightly) says here about the Martin 167, I'm happy to leave it. My feeling is, if it actually entered service, the original operator should get priority, but in this case, I'm not strong for/against. Trekphiler (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW, if anybody's interested, when I copied the page here, it was as F2A. So there. =D)
163 out of 509 Buffalos went to the USN and USMC. On Dec. 7th about 90 were on hand.Markus Becker02 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish use

Something that's not in the text, is how finland got these aircraft. The war probably hadn't started yet when they acquired them, but I'm assuming that finland already had ties to nazi germany back then, probably making them a questionable business partner from a political perspective. Are there any sources on this? -- MiG (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Winter_War#Foreign_support. The international community was almost as opposed to the Soviet invasion of Finland as it was to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Grant | Talk 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finns inspiring Germans

Somebody has made the claim: "According to some reports, this tactic [using four-ship formations] also inspired the German Luftwaffe's kette." This seems a strange thing to say - the Kette is a three-ship formation, normally used by bomber units. Maybe the author meant Luftwaffe Schwarm tactics, but these were developed by the Legion Condor in Spain, so would have been well-established by the time of the Continuation War in Finland. Unless anyone has a more sensible interpretation of this claim, I suggest to simply delete the sentence.

83.250.135.237 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"A sensible interpretation" being not forthcoming in over two years I have done the deed!!! Puerile nonsense is the only kind thing I can think of to say. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent review

I would like to enlist other editors in assessing this article which had recently been classed as a "start" and to my mind, does not fit that category. See examples of start articles. FWIW, the example of a "start" article is 1st Battalion 2nd Marines. Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Brewster FA

F2A would be the second US Navy fighter produced by Brewster - which was the first? Drutt (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the explanation: Under the naval system of aircraft designation, Brewster was assigned the manufacturer's identification letter of 'A', which had previously been allocated to the General Aviation Corporation (ex-Atlantic). Since General Aviation had already produced an aircraft designated FA back in 1932, the designation XF2A-1 was assigned to the Brewster aircraft. Drutt (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
General Aircraft XFA Drutt (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Brewster 339B

What was the B-339B? Drutt (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An export model intended for Belgium[1]. Drutt (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Plural

"Buffalos" and "Buffaloes" are both in use in this article. We ought to choose one and stick with it, probably the first for conformity with "Mosquitos" (rather than "Mosquitoes"). Drutt (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft

The f2A was designed as a carrier borne fleet fighter, as such it is comparable to the contemporary Fairey Fulmar. Why is such a simple edit being challenged?Damwiki1 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#See also: "Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate."
They are of the same era, that much is clear. Same role? Not quite, as the Fulmar was designed to also perform fleet reconnassaince duties, one reason RN FAA fighters of the era were usually two-seaters. In the USN, these duties were usually handled by scout bombers such as the SBD Dauntless, while its fighters were single seaters. Capabilities? the Buffalo was slightly faster, and had slightly longer range, but they are close enough. However, the Fulmar is almost double the weight of the Buffalo, so it is a bit larger. Taken all together, it is probably a borderline case. But if we include the Fulamr because they are both "fleet fighters", we would pretty much have to include every "fleet fighter" of the late 1930s, which might make the list a little long (6-8 aircrft at least, perhaps more if we include all the Japanese fleet fighters of this era). So to keep "this as tight as possible", it's probably best just to include the single-seaters. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not include all contemporary carrier borne fighters? How does this detract from the article? The fact is that if you want to compare carrier borne fighters of this era, you will inevitability be looking at the F4F, F3F, F2A, Fulmar, Sea Hurricane, A5M, and A6M, and what's the harm of including them in the comparable aircraft section?Damwiki1 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Because then the lists would get too long, and the section would overwhelm the articles. That's not keeping "this as tight as possible". These sectionas are always in tension between users who only want almost idintical aircraft, and those who want to lit as many as vaguely similar or comparable. There has to be a balance. For some aircraft, such as the E-2 or EA-6B, rhere are usually only one or two other types that fill those roles, so the list may be a bit broad. For other types, such as fifhters, there are many types in a given tiem period,m so some discression has to be used to keep the lists from being too long. - BilCat (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, drop the Seafire and add the Fulmar. I'm not sure how a Seafire and the F2A can be considered comparable. The Fulmar OTOH, was a contemporary to the F2A and both were in carrier service at the same time.Damwiki1 (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The Seafire was a single-seat naval conversion of a fighter. The Fulmar was a two-seat reconnaissance/fleet fighter that was conceived to fulfill a different set of requirements, hence, the need for a second crew member. Why not the Firefly? same reason, we are essentially comparing comparable aircraft and the Buffalo being an operational, single-seat, piston engine powered, carrier-based fighter would be classed with the following contemporaries: F4F Wildcat, F4U Corsair, Sea Hurricane, A6M Zero and Supermarine Seafire. Are there any other Second World War era monoplane, single place, carrier fighters to include? The Hawker Sea Fury does not fit the timeline, while the other Grumman product, the F8F Bearcat was not fully operational by the end of the conflict. (Note that the Fairey Fulmar article lists only the Blackburn Skua and Fairey Firefly as comparable aircraft.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
The RN used the Fulmar as a fleet defence fighter at the same time as the USN was using the F2A for exactly the same purposes, while Seafire did did not see carrier service until well after the F2A had been withdrawn from carrier service. You keep getting hung up on the fact that the RN used two seat fighters on their carriers, but the fact remains that the Fulmar and the F2A were doing the same job at the same time.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The Fulmar was a two-seat fighter conceived and designed to operate primarily as "fleet" fighter which in RN parlance of the time was the equivalent of a spotter and recce platform, necessitating a navigator for long-range, over water missions (sorties). Its origins came from a failed RAF prototype light bomber/dive bomber/trainer that lost out to the Hawker Henley. The Fulmar could not compete equitably with smaller, single-seat fighters as a CAP aircraft and was primarily relegated to scouting and reconnaissance. The Fulmar's use as a fighter was secondary (see Mondey, Winchester, Green) although it was pressed into use as a fighter and had success against bombers and other aircraft, even land-based single seat fighters. The Buffalo was a single-seat fighter and designed as such with a role that was substantially different predominately operating as a fighter. After 1940, the Fulmar was unsuccessfully tested as a night fighter, but remained in service because its long range was appreciably better than its other RN fighters, the Sea Hurricane and Seafire, both types supplanting the Fulmar as early as 1941 for the Sea Hurricane and 1943 for the Seafire. Its replacement was a similar aircraft, the Fairey Firefly, seeing service in 1945. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
The Fulmar's primary use from 1940-early 1942 was to provide CAP and escort strike missions with recon as a very secondary function. I'm sorry but you seem to have little grasp of RN FAA history. In all the Malta convoys the Fulmar's primary use was to provide CAP, for example. It was used to provide escort for strike missions in the early part of the war, as well, and as such was a direct counterpart to the F2A. All this to prevent me from adding the Fulmar as a comparable aircraft! Hilarious!Damwiki1 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep the commentary to the subject and follow Thumper's advice, "if you haven't got anything nice to say..." FWiW, Taylor (Fairey Aircraft since 1915, 1974, pp. 310–312) identifies the aircraft as an all-weather naval fighter and notes all significant Fulmar operations and although it is used as fighter escort over convoys, June 1940–November 1943, two or three reconnaissance ops were flown over North Africa, and in shadowing the Bismarck during the same period. There is no problem in identifying the type as a contemporary of the F2A Buffalo in the body of the text, but the comparison of a two-seat multi-purpose carrier-based fighter with a single-seat dedicated naval fighter is still problematic. However, if you have consensus for what is essentially only a single notation, the change could be made, although I don't see that consensus forming. Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The Buffalo had a similar history of misfortune as the Fairey Battle in that both 'were in the wrong place at the wrong time'. Both aircraft were fairly pleasant flying machines but were outclassed by the time they were used in action, such was the pace of aeronautical development at the time. In the RAF's case, the Buffaloes were also operating at a permanent disadvantage in that they were being used in the air defence role without any of the underlying support in the way of radar which would have allowed the Buffaloes some early warning in-which to gain the advantage of height over their Japanese opponents, the priority for the Chain Home systems being allocated to the UK, and development of mobile systems being on a lower priority, especially for places such as Burma and Singapore. As a result, the aircraft were expected to 'scramble' with very little warning. With an aircraft such as the Hurricane it was possible to survive under these conditions, but unfortunately the Buffalo could not. The Buffalo's success in Finland was probably due to them being 'Export' models with uprated engines, and weighing about a ton less than other Buffaloes. Also engine overheating would probably have been less of a problem in Finland than it was elsewhere. And many of their Soviet opponents were flying biplanes.
As regards comparable aircraft then I would compare the Buffalo to some of the French fighters such as the Dewoitine D.520, Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, or Bloch MB.150, although these aircraft were land-based and probably had the edge over the Buffalo performance-wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.160 (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Undenting Here I'd like to chim in with a parallel to the difference in doctrine in tank warfare. While some countries classified their armoured vehicles by weight (light, medium, heavy), other classified them by roles (infantry tank, cruiser, reconnaissance and so on) making it nigh impossible to make direct comparisons between them, as there are bound to be overlaps and discrepancies. On the topic at hand, I'd say we should focus on what the various countries had flying to get the job done, possibly with a few examples of what they were constructed to meet. BP OMowe (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fulmar and Firefly were two-seaters because in addition to having a second person for navigation, the role of 'Spotter' referred to observing the fall of shot of a battleship's big guns and radioing back to the battleship range corrections. These two aircraft (and the Swordfish, Albacore, and Barracuda) were both designed before a ship's own radar was able to do the ranging and before speech radio (R/T) was in widespread use - they would have used WT, i.e., Morse code, to signal the battleships. That's why they were two-seaters. The pilot would fly the aircraft and the person in the back would 'spot' the impact points of the battleship's guns, and tap-back corrections to the battleship in Morse. He also did the navigation.
Prior to the war Germany - the most likely future enemy - didn't have any aircraft carriers and as under Anglo-French plans the French navy was intended to be operating mainly in the Mediterranean, and the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, the latter would be well out of the range of any German land-based fighters, so the reduced performance of a two-seater was thought acceptable, the only likely opponent that might be encountered being long-range aircraft like what became the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor. The Fall of France in 1940 changed all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Buffalo out-turned Fiat G.50???

I think the quote tha the Buffalo out-turned the "Freccia" should be deleted as almost ridicolous. The Fiat fighter in tests out-turned the very nimble Macchi C.200 that, in turn, could out-turn, out-climb and out-dive the Hurricane and the Hawker fighter could out-turn the Spitfire that was famed for its agility, so to write that the Buffalo was more agile that the Fiat G.50 should be deleted as not reliable or should be corrected, writing that the Fiat was much more manouvrable than the Buffalo but in that flight was probably flown by not competent pilot, or was flown on porpouse in that way. Please say your opinion here, I am going to correct that quote. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is already cited, and the original source, Air & Space magazine, is reliable. The website creator has admitted to "updating" the article, and the site itself probably not relaible as it is self-created. I'll add appropriate tgs, and hopefully someone can get a copy of the original source to verift all material cited from tht site. That said, if the statement is verified fromn the original source, the info should remain. Unless you have a relaible souce that denies the incident occured, or that the incident was stged, you have no supportable reason to remove the info. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Gian, why don't you wait more than 2 seconds to revert me, and let the discussion be carried out first. I've addressed your issues here, and stated I'll be applying more appropriate tags. You've no real reason to revet me. Slow down. -BilCat (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok... sorry

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Finnish Buffalo was undoubtedly a lighter and more nimble fighter so Dan Ford's "take" on its handling is not only possible but highly plausible. Ford is a recognized aviation historian and quotes a number of other experts on his website. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
I am sure that sooner or later I shall find a source that states how the extremely manoeuvrable Fiat G.50 was more agile than the Finnish Buffalo and then I will delete with pleasure that absurd statement... It only needs some time...

REgards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This was an actual test flight that was faithfully documented, and in this instance, the Buffalo proved more capable, so no matter what you discover, that won't change the facts regarding this flight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
That flight seems to have been organized to convince the Finnish pilots that the Buffalo was a good aircraft and to do so, they organized a flight test with the porpouse to convince the pilots that the Brewster was good, so could that it could out-turn the renowed Fiat fighter. Otherwise why the Finnish pilots should have been "over-joyed" to see that their new aircraft proved more capable than the Freccia? I hope i explained myself in a language that is not mine...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that the test was "rigged"? What evidence do you have for that? Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aviation historian Dan Ford

I have removed the disputed labels that have been inserted in the article. Daniel Ford (1931 -) is an American journalist, novelist, and historian. The son of Patrick and Anne Ford, he attended public schools in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, graduating in 1950 from Brewster Academy in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. He was educated at the University of New Hampshire (A.B. Political Science 1954), the University of Manchester (Fulbright Scholar, Modern European History 1954–55), and King's College London (M.A. War Studies 2010).

As for credentials, Ford served in the U.S. Army at Fort Bragg and in Orléans, France. Following an apprenticeship at The Overseas Weekly in Frankfurt, Germany, he became a free-lance writer in Durham, New Hampshire. He received a Stern Fund Magazine Writers' Award (1964) for his dispatches from South Vietnam, published in The Nation; a Verville Fellowship (1989–90) at the National Air and Space Museum to work with Japanese accounts of the air war in Southeast Asia; and an Aviation - Space Writers' Association Award of Excellence (1992) for his history of the Flying Tigers. He is best known for his Flying Tigers research and for the Vietnam novel that became the Burt Lancaster film, Go Tell the Spartans.

Ford is a resident scholar at the University of New Hampshire. He writes for the Wall Street Journal and Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine, maintains the Warbird's Forum, Piper Cub Forum, and Reading Proust websites, and blogs on War in the Modern World. He soloed in a J-3 Piper Cub at the age of 68 and continues to fly as a sport pilot. Office: 433 Bay Road, Durham NH 03824 USA. As a military historian, Ford won the 1992 Award of Excellence from the Aviation-Space Writers Association for Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group, published by Smithsonian Institution Press, and soon to be issued in a revised and updated edition from HarperCollins. "War history as it should be written!" exclaimed the reviewer for the Naval aviation journal The Hook. Non-fiction works:

  • A Vision So Noble: John Boyd, the OODA Loop, and America's War on Terror (2010) ISBN 978-1451589818
  • Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 (2007) ISBN 978-0061246555
  • Editor: The Lady and the Tigers: Remembering the Flying Tigers of World War II, by Olga Greenlaw (2002) ISBN 978-0595222346
  • The Only War We've Got: Early Days in South Vietnam (2001) ISBN 978-0595175512
  • Glen Edwards: The Diary of a Bomber Pilot (1998) ISBN 978-1560985716
  • The Country Northward (1976)

Novels:

...and what sources do you have to dispute his scholarship regarding the Brewster Buffalo? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


The nimble Freccia

I dont say that he is not competent, I say that it is very strange that one of the most nimble fighter of its time was out-manouvred by a fighter that was well known for the opposite. So probably we could leave Ford quote and put a note that remember to the readers how agile was the Italian figther, so the reader could have his/her opinion, what you think? I can do it, quoting some anglosaxon historians. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the Fiat fighter is already well documented as a premier dogfighter, adding more to this article on the Brewster Buffalo as a disclaimer falls into the category of "What's the point?" There are already voluminous accounts of the "Finnish Buffalo" and its combat attributes, one being a personal account by a leading ace which identifies the maneuverability of a "stripped" down F2A. In many ways, the "Finnish Buffalo" was a more capable fighter than its British, Dutch and American antecedents, and there is no need for "my fighter is better than your fighter" squabble by giving claims and counter-claims. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
I agree, and I just put a note remembering how agile was the Fiat monoplane, because probably many readers dont know about the G.50 qualities.

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary, this is not an article on the Fiat G.50! BTW, the Brewster was not a "truck" like the contemporary Grumman F3F Wildcat or other contemporaries. At its optimum altitude and in a stripped down condition, was as maneuverable as any fighters of the period. The over-loaded F2A versions were completely outclassed by faster aircraft and rarely were used as dogfighters. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was one type that "feasted" on the Buffalo carcass, but the "Finnish Buffalo" was a completely different sort. (All puns intended.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
Re:"It has to be remembered, however, that the Fiat G.50 was an extremely agile aircraft, that could out-turn even the very nimble Macchi C.200, while the Brewster was notorius[sp] for the opposite, so the results of this flight probably could not indicate that the Buffalo was in general a better plane[sp]." See above comment, as you have made suppositions that are completely inaccurate and as before, were NOT necessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's stop it but please do not forget that the British lightened the aircraft in an effort to combat more effectively the Japanese fighter, but it was all in vain. Even stripped the Buffalo was a... cow!

Anyway, thanks for your time and all informations, best regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

British modifications? I've never found information that the British versions were substantially lightened. Once at altitude, the Buffalo handled well and if it was in a favourable position, could dogfight with other enemy aircraft, the usual scenario was that the Asian-based Buffalos were "bounced" as they strained to gain altitude. The costly decision to use the F2A as an interceptor given the primitive early warning systems of the time, doomed the fighter to an inglorious end. If you read the accounts of the Finnish campaign, the Buffalo was used to its greatest advantage, consequently it racked up an impressive number of victories. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

The RAF Buffaloes had additional armour plate, self-sealing fuel tanks, and normal RAF operational equipment such as reflector gunsights, dinghy, IFF that took the weight to around a ton heavier than other 'Export' Buffaloes, and IIRC two guns and their ammunition were later removed to try and gain enough increase in performance to cope against the Japanese Army Type 1. The Buffalo was sent to the Far East because it had an air-cooled engine, but with hindsight they should probably have sent Hurricanes, and IIRC it wasn't until a few ex-Battle of Britain Hurricanes IAs that had been withdrawn from storage in the UK arrived that the RAF was able to fight against the Ki-43 on anything approaching equal terms. Later new Hurricane IICs were sent to India and coped reasonably well, and when Spitfire VIIIs were sent out there, Japanese air raids were more or less stopped completely, the Spitfire VIII outclassing everything that opposed it.

The RAF Buffaloes were fighting the Ki-43 which was a much better all-round fighter, flown by pilots many of whom had gained experience earlier over Manchuria, and who had the initiative due to being the ones doing the attacking and who therefore always had the advantage of altitude. For the Buffalo in the Far East, it was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Part of the blame goes to the British government of the time for failing to send sufficient forces of sufficient size and quality to defend the far eastern areas, but in fairness to them, they were already fighting a war on the other side of the world and may be forgiven for thinking they had more pressing problems closer to home. The other thing is that at the time - 1940-41 - there was very little intelligence on Japanese aircraft available to the British planners, and the aircraft that British and Commonwealth forces eventually faced were much better than had been anticipated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First Unit

First unit received Buffalos on December 1939, not June. according to Stenman and Thomas, I correct what is not referenced. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Model 139"

I am new to this process so I hope someone with more familiarity can help. The Buffalo article contains several references to "Model 139" as equating to the XF2A-1. This is not correct - the Brewster Model 139 was an export proposal, never built, for a "scout-fighter" version of the XSBA-1 two-seat bomber. None of the Navy variants were identified as anything but "F2A-2", "F2A-3" etc. The Model numbers only related to export variants, and so Model 239 simply meant "second export type for year [19]39". A fuller description can be found at http://warbirdsforum.yuku.com/reply/1030/Brewster-Buffalo-production-list#reply-1030 and a complete (as possible) listing of Brewster designations and project numbers is in my article "Fall From Grace - The Brewster Aeronautical Corporation 1932-42", Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, Summer 1985 page 134. Hope this helps. Jim Maas (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim, just make the changes and others will pick up any editing issues such as grammar, formatting, etc. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
Jim, Sounds like you have done your homework. Pls contribute to the article; just remember to avoid Original research.E2a2j (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, changes made to designations and a few clarifications/editing. For example, there was an implication in the Finnish section that there were 66 F2A-1's ordered, but the Navy only ordered 54. The Finns initially wanted 66 but contracted for 44. Any changes can be referenced to the Squadron F2A Buffalo in Action book. Jim Maas (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with clarification

I've been confused by several photos regarding the F2A and their squadron markings, which I'm not familiar with. The navy history page claims F2A-3 "2-MF-13" is from VMF-212, but the article makes no mention of the aircraft, and several googled sites (mostly models) say it's VMF-221.

Another photo showing F2A-3 "MF-5" which crashed on USS Long Island is from VMF-211. I probably have no doubt about that, it's just that the markings "MF-5" was also used by a fighter from VMF-221 that was MIA during the battle of Midway (at least according to the warbirdforum). This next photo claims F2A "112 MF 4" to be from VMF-112, but once again the article makes no mention of the aircraft ever serving with the squadron.

Finally, this image (I didn't add it) under the U.S. Marine Corps section has the caption, "VMF-211 F2A-3 being shipped to Midway, in early 1942". The VMF-211 article makes no mention of the squadron being at Midway, but at Palmyra Atoll. Are sources commonly mistaking VMF-221 for VMF-211?

Hope anyone can help clarify/identify these F2A's markings, that way I won't mistaken anymore photos & captions on this article should I choose to add one in future. Wolcott (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope I can help some. VMF 212 did indeed have F2A's, actually 29 of them, but for most of them this was only from late February to early March 1942 at Ewa in Hawaii. I've never understood the '2-MF-13' code myself. It may mean 2nd Marine Air Group(the next higher level organization) since aircraft were being swapped between units so often, and repainting the squadron designation (the numbers before the 'MF' would have been tedious. Similar Ewa Marine units using F2A's for brief periods were VMF 213 (seven aircraft July 6 to 24, 1942), VMF 214 (also seven aircraft July 6 to 23 1942), VMF 223 (nine aircraft, most between May 15 and July 1 1942), and VMF 224 (five aircraft between May 15 and June 12 1942). VMO 251 (Observation Squadron) also had two F2A-2P's during the March-June period. There were also a number of similar units at San Diego which had F2A's during unit workup periods: VMF 111 (as in the photo you asked about), VMF 112 and VMF 121 .
'MF-5' is from VMF 211, which had used F2A-3's from March 31 to July 28 (there are some outliers in either direction). The unit was assigned to Palmyra Island. 'MF-5' seems to duplicate a VMF 221 code, but it really doesn't. From the early 1920's, Navy aircraft used a side code which read Squadron Number, hyphen, Squadron Class (F for fighter, O for observation, etc), hyphen, Individual Aircraft Number within squadron. In the late 1930's, the Marines adopted this system (previously they used a small Type Code inside a circle) but added an 'M' in front of the Squadron Class. So '221-MF-13' identifies aircraft 13 of Marine Fighter Squadron 221 (i.e. VMF 221). However, once the war began, it became clear that carrying the squadron number on aircraft was a security issue so on April 29, 1942, all Navy and Marine aircraft were to have the squadron number painted out. Thus, '221-MF-13' and '211-MF-13' both became simply 'MF-13'.
I think the caption "VMF 211 F2A-3 being shipped to Midway" may be a miscaption. VMF 211 didn't go to Midway. Jim Maas (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I've made a caption error in my latest image addition to the USMC section. I will correct it right away. I've also checked the source of the first image, but it doesn't confirm that the F2A-3 in the image is VMF 211 or being "shipped to Midway" (no caption or info). But I'll leave it as it is for now as it wasn't my addition. These USMC markings are really confusing, as I was so certain that there was only one F2A '2-MF-13', which is VMF-221. I'm just going to follow the image's official caption. Many thanks anyway. Wolcott (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


I am the only one that notices something is wrong about the Finnish claims? They are basically saying "we have a weaker engine than yours, more weapons, more ammunition, more armor" yet we have a more manouverable plane. Has anyone ever heard of wing loading? The Buffalo was a horrible fighter (as witnessed by its technical data), as witnessed by many (non-Finnish) pilots. The Soviet archives were declassified in 1991. Read through the topic. The information is absolutely present in them. Compare the actual historians providing ample evidence and cross-checking archive information and German records, to the nationalist retard still clinging on to propaganda. It is very interesting. The Fin actually states that his even worse-rigged Buffalo was a match for Hurricane IIs, Spitfires V and IX, Yak-1/3/7/9, LaGG-3, La-5 etc (and therefore implying the Bf 109F/G/H and FW 190A as actually comparable, since they were developed as responses to combat the hostile advanced fighters). It is especially interesting to note the claims of P-38 Lightnings (never in USSR service), P-51 Mustangs (only 10 Allison P-51A, none in service in the Northern sector) by Finns in their Buffalo. If only everyone had known the mistake they were making by discarding their precious Buffaloes and developing other planes.... http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.150.112 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No mystery here. The Soviets allocated less experienced pilots to the Finnish front. It's not about the plane quality, but pilot ability instead. Humu (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Survivor

Today's NYT has an article about a Buffalo found off Midway.Kdammers (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

'Citation Needed' in Belgian section: the six Belgian 339B's that went to Martinique can be sourced, among numerous other places, with the Squadron-Signal 'F2A Buffalo in Action' book, page 19: ""The next six Model 339B's...were unloaded and parked in a field...Martinique Island had no airfield and all of the aircraft were permanently grounded. The Buffalos...languished on Martinique until they were destroyed..."

I'd change it but don't trust my skill to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Maas (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed, F2A-1 had two or four guns?

Under the heading, 'Design and development': "While service testing of the XF2A-1 prototype began in January 1938 and in June, production started on the F2A-1. They were powered by the 940 hp (701 kW) Wright R-1820-34 engine and had a larger fin. The added weight of two additional .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning wing guns and other equipment specified by the Navy for combat operations reduced the initial rate of climb to 2,600 ft/min."

But the 'Variants' section has brackets saying, "(with Wright R-1820-34 Cyclone engine and two guns)". Which is correct here? Wolcott (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As originally ordered, the F2A-1 only had one .30 and one .50 machine gun in the fuselage. I've seen photos of BuNo 1387 (the World's Fair aircraft) and 1388 (3-F-18) with just this armament. However, very quickly the Navy realized that the armament suitable for a Boeing F4B biplane might not be up to the job in 1940, so before the F2A-1's were delivered to VF-3, a .50 machine gun was added in each wing. The citation is technically correct but in reality, the F2A-1 once in service had four machine guns. Jim Maas (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Wolcott (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Radar and the Buffalo

Some info in this pdf [2] about the RAF's radar systems in the Far East. Surprisingly they had quite a few mobile sets up and working by 1942. The 'AMES' mentioned is 'Air Ministry Experimental Station'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, several comments,
  1. . Please sign your posts with 4 tildas.
  2. . As this is about a new topic, it needs its own section. (Use 2 equals signs before and after the section name)
  3. . It must be one of the fastest cases of link rot ever as I am unable to load the page.
  4. . Due to number 3, I am unable to determine where or even if, this should be added to the page.NiD.29 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brewster and comparable French fighters of the era

Finnish pilots who flew the F2A version were unequivocal that Brewster was the best fighter of those used in the Airforce before Me 109. While Morane Saulnier M.S 406 was agile, it was underpowered. Most of them had three light machine guns and if provided with the cannon, while effective, it was unreliable. The systems were complex and caused problems in field conditions. Radios were unreliable and had poor performance.

Brewster could out dive the more agile Polikarpov I 16 and I 153 and had enough climb rate for the use of energy tactics. It has been a cause of debate whether Buffalo could have performed better against Zero and Oscar with better tactics, such as Thach weave. It could out turn the lend-lease Hurricane II and P-39, MiG 1 and 3 likewise LaGG 3. In low altitudes, Brewster could outperform Hurricane, which Finnish pilots noted was slow to accelerate and climb if it lost its speed, which would happen in dogfight.

Brewster's armament, modified to 4 x 12,7 mm was considered to be reliable and helped against later opponents who with better could and would use energy tactics against Brewster. Finnish pilots have noted that if the Russians had used energy tactics with e.g Hurricane instead of traditional dogfighting, fighting the Russians would have been more dangerous than it obviously was already during 41-42. 1943 onwards better Yak series fighters and La 5 started to appear in growing numbers leaving Moranes (and most of the other fighters used as well) completely obsolete, while pilots who had gathered the experience and by modifying tactics, could hold themselves with Brewster. Noseball (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Hurricane required 100 octane fuel. No use operating them on 87 or 93 octane fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.173 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brewster F2A Buffalo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brewster F2A Buffalo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brewster_F2A_Buffalo/Archive_1&oldid=981334425"