4 replies to this topic

[Jim O'Neil]

The Buffalo has been further abused with all the worst traits of several models... 1) If it is lightly armed, so are the F4Fs of the same period...both F2A3 and F4F-3 had 4X.50 cal MGs.2) The F2A3 was comparable to the F4F in rate of climb and top speed... it rolled somewhat faster and was not as robust (but it was a tank compared to anything Japanese). It did have armored fuel cells.The Marines of VMF-221, which were mauled so badly at Midway would have only profited from F4F's robustness. They would not have done any better. They just weren't ready to go up against well trained and combat experienced Japanese Pilots. Not putting them or their courage down, but experience is hard to beat. In the hands of the Flying Chiefs of VF-2 they should get an ACE or 3 (-3) or 4 (-2) , (they had a mix of F2A2s and F2A3s, the -3s are much worse fighters); with the Marines of VMF-221, they get an ACE of 2.3) The F2A2 (and earlier versions) was a better dogfighter than the F4F. That's why it won the fly off. IT has the unprotected fuel cells. It can have either 2X .50 and 2X .30 MGs or just 4X .50 Cal MGs. The B339 did well in dogfights over Java, when flown by Netherlands pilots. Without radar, they were always reacting ... a bad place for a fighter to be, so their days were numbered. ACE = 34) The Buffalo's flown by the British pilots did poorly, because of the limited pilots training, the mechanics poor training and the inherent belief that their plane was inferior. British F2As should always have an ACE of 2 (although to be fair, they also had an Ace or two in Buffalos).My take on a complex subject, based on a lot of reading.

[Lonnie Gill]

Bravo6,I think you have some good suggestions. The Buffalo has been much maligned because of early contacts with some masterful Japanese pilots. The performance stats - as shown on the ALLIED AIRCRAFT CAPACITY table (page 6-1) - were indeed very comparable with the F4F. The published ACE is for the general case, where historically the F2A performed slightly less well. You are taking this general case to the next level by adding a consideration for pilot skill. I've already done this for the Japanese Zero. The A6M was essentially the same for several years, but the skill level of the average pilot declined dramatically from year to year. Used judiciously, this can make for a richer, more accurate simulation. If someone with an interest in this comes up with an expanded file to show the differences for selected unit skill levels, it will provide a nice addition for all of us who want more detail in aerial encounters. We all benefit by helping each other with our focused research.My caution is, be selective. An adjustment of "1" in the ACE is significant. Thus, I can agree certain Buffalo units ought to get a 3 -, but I'd think a 4 would be a bit too much. That would make it equivalent to a Bf109. One of the files we'll be loading on the web soon shows how the ACE factors were derived. This will give you the vehicle to make mods for specific units.

[Bob Benge]

Just to comment on the F2A Buffalo vs. F4F Wildcat. While I agree with Bravo6 on his comments, there is some abstraction as to capabilities of aircraft in war. To rate aircraft fighting capability, one must consider rate of dive, dive speed, rate of climb, climb speed, max speed, armament and the very important maneuverability. Maneuverability is an abstract rating that can be somewhat derived from an aircraft's wing surface area, but since this is, in general, an abstraction to measure maneuverability, it will be subject to interpretation. I think that Bravo6's points on how capable pilots in even odds did prove out that the Buffalo was able to hold its own and that the Dutch did well against the Japanese and the Finns also did well against the Russians (though the Russian aircraft and pilots were suspect in quality during the Winter War) would bear out his ideas. Knowing that Lonnie has limits due to formula and dice restrictions to maintain playability, it does leave less room for differentiation. We see these same comments on occasion with Mein Panzer in reference to some tanks. Suffice it to say the line must be drawn somewhere. I would think that the F2A Buffalo would rate close to, if not the same as, the F4F Wildcat. But, if the formula that Lonnie uses puts the F2A Buffalo on the next lowest rating from the F4F Wildcat then I would not see a problem, especially if the other aircraft in the game rate out well in relation to each other. Some excellent research on the topic, Bravo6. The F2A was always maligned for its lack-luster performance during the Pacific campaign. Both the F2A and the F4F were really obsolete or on the verge of obsolesance at the opening of the war, yet both were capable fighters with well trained pilots. The P-40 Warhawk was in the same boat until Mr. Chenault taught his pilots how to use the aircraft to its capabilites. I don't think the F2A Buffalo was ever given this kind of attention. :) Happy Gaming!

[Jim O'Neil]

Bob,Mr. Channualt considered the Buffalo decidedly inferior to the P-40. His Reasoning is sound. Saburo Sakai considered the well flown P-40 to be the most formidable enemy fighter ! If you used it's abilities and avoided it's weak points, the P-40 was quite capable (and did) cream large numbers of both Zero's and Bf-109s ... I concur that both the F2A and F4F were fading in 1942 ...but note that the F4F soldiered on through the war as the FM-2, and with more powerful engines and some of the weight stuck on the F4F-4 removed, proved quite capable. It is ironic to note that the folding wings and six .50 cals the British demanded and we put on all F4Fs in 1942, were later removed and both Navy's reverted to the fixed wing, four gun set up with a better engine in late 1943.Jim

[gregoryk]

Bravo6, you bring up an excellent point about the General Motors FM-2 Wildcat. My father was a navy flier during WWII, and flew all the various types save for the F4U Corsair during his career. He maintains the GM Wildcat was the best plane he flew. In terms of dogfighting, he avers it was better than the Zero. Its main changes, as you mentioned, were four .50 cal guns vice six for the F4F-4 (reduced weight and wing-loading), a more powerful engine, and a larger stabilizer. All this contributed to the drum-like hull design of this Grumman fighter returning to its original maneuverability. Of course, it was disadvantaged by a lower speed, less payload-carrying capability, and shorter range.Nevertheless, he loved the plane, probably because of its nimble characteristics. He used to make fun of its engine, which sounded like a rotary dryer or washing machine with a lot of tennis shoes in it. He said that if you did not know better, you thought the thing was coming apart. Whether he is right or wrong about the FM-2, it is this kind of oral history which is absolutely invaluable to adding to our understanding of historical events.Cheers,Gregory