Brewster Buffalo - WW2's "Worst" Aircraft Wasn't All Bad | Aircraft History #7

The Brewster Buffalo cops a lot of flak as being one of the worst planes of World War 2. But it was more a victim of mismanagement, poor timing, and an obsession over equipment-creep.
Also, the little bit about Brewster hiring two convicted fraudsters to represent their sales department (who then oversold the companies capabilities) probably didn't help either...
Despite performing abysmally in the far east and Pacific theaters, being completely outclassed by Japanese Zeroes, the Buffalo made a much better name for itself in the hands of Finnish pilots who flew them against the Soviet Union. In fact, it managed a 32-1 KD ration, a truly monumental achievement for any aircraft in the war.
****
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine. I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :)

[@edl617]

The Finnish Air Force produced 36 Buffalo aces. The top three were Capt. Hans Wind, with 39 Buffalo air victories. WO Eino Ilmari Juutilainen, with 34 and Capt. Jorma Karhunen, with 25.5.

[@marcussoininen2084]

@JZ's Best Friend Outdated tactics and poor training too, the Russians I mean.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@JZ's Best Friend No, the conclusion is that the Russian pilots and tactics were inferior (as they tend to be).

[@theJediSaiyanh]

@@chuckschillingvideos did you know that in MIG alley, Americans were facing Russians in disguise

[@Axterix13]

​@JZ's BFF Nah. Some planes definitely are outdated, but for others, much of it comes down to tactics and needs. The P-39, for example, was loved by the Russians, but not by the Americans. This is, in part, because the Russians used it at low altitudes, while the US had more need for high altitude fighters. Meanwhile, the P-40, with overall worse performance, is generally considered a decent plane, mostly due to the Flying Tigers, who used tactics that minimized its drawbacks while utilizing its stronger points, and the iconic nose paint. Likewise, the Wildcat gets a bit of a bad rep due to early losses against Zeros, but even by the Midway, with the Thach Weave being used, already held its own just fine.

[@harri9885]

The version of the Brewster Finland got from the US was demilitarized and known as Brewster B239. They were later retrofitted with Finnish made Väisälä holographic sights and russian looted 12,7mm guns.

[@myrskylintu1]

When talking about Finnish Brewsters, you have to put them in the context of the time. In 1940 Finland had Fokker DXXI and Morane 406's, and couple Fiats. Soviets had I-16 Rata and Hurricane I's. In this context Brewster was not bad at all. Pilots considered it better than Hurricane I, and good against the I-16 Rata. Morane 406 had only 840hp or so, and Fokker DXXI was outclassed. First aircraft Finns received that was equal to Brewster, was Curtiss 75 Hawk. It was not better than Brewster, but as good. Only in 1943 when we got Bf-109's, Brewster was clearly blown away.

[@paulsnell534]

I find Finland's involvement in WW2 quite fascinating and one of the most amazing things about Finland in WW2 is how they got the absolute maximum out of what was almost completely obsolete equipment. If there ever was a contender for punching the highest above their weight in WW2 Finland would be right up there.

[@myview5840]

@@paulsnell534 the phrase, A bad workman always blames his tools. Springs to mind!

[@EneTheGene]

Important to note that the brewsters didn't arrive in time for the winter war.

[@sozzle600]

Con men.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

same going up against Japanese fighters, they were holding until outclassed by the newer planes entering service

[@somerandomguy___]

Wow, this plane is a very good example of being the right plane in the wrong place

[@captainsalty9022]

The Smithsonian Air an Space Museum has a copy of the Brewster Pilot Operating Handbook which was issued to my father in 1941.

[@BUILD.THERE.]

That’s really awesome. I loved going there as a child and just the other week I finally got to take my 5 year old son there. He loved it just as much as I did!

[@Surrlibrumm]

Best fighter plane in respect of the kill ratio in WWII is and was the Brewster 239 in finnish hands. Kill ratio over the whole war ... 33 : 1, .... kill ratio in 1941 (fighting the planes it was designed to fight with) 62 : 1. The F2A "Buffalo" was a complete different airplane. The Brewster 239 was the plane Brewster designed and had excellent handling characteristics. In fact so well, that the Finns called them "Taivaan Helmi" ("Sky Pearls" in english). The american Brewster F2A was an airplane that was buildt, after a "comitee of experts" insistet of several "improvements" which made it a sluggish pig.

[@bradfordeaton6558]

That happened to the P-39 too.

[@ippivonlarha9900]

That was just lovely.

[@Pectopah123]

@@bradfordeaton6558 Yep, but Brewster had to fight also against western P63's P51's P40's P47's Spitfires, Hawker Hurricanes + New Good Soviet stuff... Buffalo was heard opponent to the enemy as a Buffalo can be protecting it's heard. So it fullfilled his task with honours. Thank you.

[@kanister60l39]

"sky pearl".... first time hearing that most used name whas mabe "kalja tynnyri" ("beer barrel") or "pylly valtteri" ("bum walter")

[@auggie803]

-I wish they would convert this aircraft over to a civilian brand(if they haven't already done so).

[@Rincypoopoo]

There is a book. "Wings Over Burma" that tells the story of the Buffalo in the east. Written by an RAF mechanic it is a fascinating read.

[@tenburywellsmartin7576]

9:35 is a Wildcat,which in fact was a very capable aircraft..!

[@neoandroid4203]

isn't there a wildcat at 6:15 as well?

[@morgandude2]

....and at 9:32.

[@limprooster3253]

@@neoandroid4203Yep. Easiest way to tell is the Buffalo canopy extends past the pilots seat, where a wildcat canopy ends directly behind the pilot. I imagine visibility out of the buffalo was amazing but I'm sure wildcat pilots appreciated the armor

[@enscroggs]

The Buffalo's landing gear was a clever yet inadequate design that seems to have been unique to that aircraft and influenced no subsequent designs except as a negative example. The primary element was an aluminum monocoque outboard strut actuated by an inner strut composed of a mild steel tube attached to a hydraulic piston which extended and retracted the gear. That same hydraulic system also acted as the shock absorber, a job it did very poorly for carrier landings. As Brewster's design intent was to reduce the weight and complexity of the landing gear, the outer strut was also engineered toward that end. The monocoque strut was designed to retract neatly into its recess in the lower surface of the wing, creating an aerodynamically clean installation without landing gear doors of any kind. Unfortunately due to the inadequate suspension, less than perfect landing tended to distort the shape of the monocoque to the point that the gear could not retract.

[@robbierobinson8819]

Nice to hear about the Finnish use of the Buffalo.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Brewster making the leap from parts manufacturer to producing a full plane for the military kinda reminds of the story of Accuracy International and the 3 guys in a shed incident.

[@elennapointer701]

I'm actually quite fond of this tubby little guy - especially the export version the Finns got (the B.239) that they liked so much, they built their own version of it.

[@whatthedeuce47d68]

Thanks for another great post. I've always been impressed by the Finnish forces holding out against the Russians in an almost mythical David vs Goliath type struggle which likely brings home the comment that the buffalo in the hands of properly trained pilots was a lot more potent weapon.

[@spudgunn8695]

Amazing how many of the "Worst aircraft" of WW2 were actually quite successful in different combat zones or different roles. I mean, even the Bolton-Paul Defiant was pretty successful as a night fighter!

[@dovidell]

I watched a video about the Fairy Battle yesterday , and my opinion is that the " battle" was far worse , as was the Douglas TBD-1 Devastator

[@brettpeacock9116]

Or the SB2-U Vindicator...which the US rejected as unfit for ANY combat and the Brits used solely as a trainer The French, desperate as they were, rejected it too. Vaught's next project was the F4U-1 Corsair, which was "marginally!" better!

[@bassetdad437]

The Battle was intended as a bomber. RAF tradition to name bombers after towns and cities eg Halifax, Stirling and Lancaster. Battle was the town named as the site of the Battle of Hastings.

[@dovidell]

@@bassetdad437 you could name a fighter OR bomber "Southend " ( Britain's newest city , and site of the worlds longest pleasure pier ) but if it didn't do the job , you might as well name it bog-roll

[@LUVEMDPOWER]

The Devastator was my first thought when I saw the title. It certainly was devastating . . . . . . . to the crews that flew them.

[@PeteCourtier]

I reckon the Me-210 or the He-177. Both turds😮

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Another excellent video. Note, to be fair, nearly every Allied fighter that ran up against the Zero in the early days of the war suffered for the experience, until our pilots learned how to combat it's agility and amazing climb rate. Also, the Marine pilots at Midway (or the Dutch or Commonwealth flyers) were not only flying inferior planes, they were swamped by sheer numbers of Japanese aircraft.

[@emjackson2289]

Really makes one wonder what might have happened had the USMC had access to say early-Mk Spitfires for example. Light, manoeuvrable, armoured, essentially interceptors. As opposed to the curious case where they needed to have Navy aircraft but without the benefit of naval deployment to carriers etc.

[@EldenLord00]

The Buffalo had 31:1 kill ration in ww2. I would say it definitely exceeded expectations

[@Niinsa62]

I saw somewhere that one of the Finnish Brewsters might have the most kills of any aircraft in history. That individual aircraft was used by several of the Finnish aces when scoring their kills, and the combined total was impressive. Must have been the best plane in that squadron if all the best pilots there wanted it as their ride.

[@aceroadholder2185]

Something like 44 victories I believe.

[@jessfrankel5212]

In the early 1940's, the Finns were fighting the Russians (who were still siding with the Nazis), and the Russians had yet to develop their Yak fighters and were using inexperienced pilots with lousy ground crews. The Finns stripped down the Buffalos and were pretty good pilots. They also used a different flying formation than the Russians did. Up against the better-built German planes, they didn't fair very well. ETA: while the Buffalo would have been a pretty decent fighter in the mid-1930's, it was largely obsolete by the early 1940's in the Pacific. Up against the Zeros, they had no chance. When the F4F came around, it did much better against the Japanese fighters and the Thatch Weave formation helped to provide additional protection against the faster and more agile Zero.

[@kallekonttinen1738]

@@jessfrankel5212 Buffalo didn't arrive in time to partisipate Winter War. It arrived after that war. Buffalo partisipated 1941 fighting when Finns joined Barbarossa. So it did battle only when Finns were allied to Nazi-Germany.. 1941-44.

[@friendship779]

Jorma Sarvanto 6.1.1940 hit 6 soviet bomber in 4 minutes. It has been long lasting world record. But it was not Brewster, it was Fokker D. XXI.

[@mkl21bis]

@@aceroadholder2185 460 kills, not 44.

[@real_fjcalabrese]

A major takeaway is don't mess with Finland.

[@kbjerke]

One of the Buffalo's designers was David Thurston, who went on to design the Lake Amphibian, as well as the Thurston Teal amphibian, which I had some experience servicing and restoring. Even had the honour of speaking with him on a couple of occasions before he passed away.

[@jakeb6703]

10:19 what a fascinating camo, looks like the dazzle ship camo update for those similarly curious: apparently McClelland Barclay was given license to go wild on a few buffalos for camo testing before retiring the idea McClelland Barclay's No. 1 Dazzle Paint scheme is what is pictured

[@scottparis6355]

The Buffalo was ahead of its time when it was introduced in 1937. But it was one of (maybe) a dozen fighters from several countries whose time was up by the time the US entered the war four years later. Counting those, like the Boulton Paul Defiant, the Fairey Battle, and several from France and the Netherlands, it was hardly the "Worst fighter of World War II." They were all just too old.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Indeed - technology moved very quickly in the 30s and 40s

[@limprooster3253]

Exactly. At that point and time almost every plane was obsolete within 5 years. The Zero was the cream of the crop as far as carrier fighters go but by 1944 it was quickly becoming the throwaway plane of choice for kamikaze missions. I'm not saying that the Brewster was anywhere near that level, but I think this is just a case of the Brewster not being used while it was effective, and being pressed into service after it had already become obsolescent

[@emjackson2289]

@@limprooster3253 just think, arguably, the best Japanese fighter of the war, the N1K1 was a Ki61 with a radial engine bolted to it (conversely, one of the worst fighters ever was the Avia S199 with a radial engine bolted onto an Me109).

[@old_guard2431]

Yet another in the "The Worst Aircraft Were Not So Bad After All" series. Most reviewers do not give the Finnish experience justice. Your short but fair and comprehensive reviews are excellent.

[@svgproductions72]

Good work, I made a two part video covering all the specifics earlier this year on all the Buffalo variants. Before working on the video I always thought the Buffalo was a terrible plane, but finding out about it’s history for Finland surprised me.

[@AhnkoCheeOutdoors]

That's not an F2A3 @ 6:06, that's a Grumman Wildcat.

[@robwalsh9843]

The BB just needed the right job to do. In the Finnish air force they found it. It was much better for cold weather conditions.

[@TenOrbital]

There were two RAAF squadrons (25 & 85) of Buffalos stationed at Perth WA until late ‘43 for local air defence. As the fighting moved away north the 25th got Vultee Vengeance dive bombers and then B-24s, and the 85th Boomerangs then Spitfires MkVs.

[@F40PH-2CAT]

The Brewster Buccaneer, OTOH was a giant piece of crap in every aspect. My grandmother worked for Brewster in 1943/44. She was subpoenaed by Congress to testify when Brewster was under investigation, though was never called.

[@Franky46Boy]

Main problem with aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss Hawk 75 was that the pilots were not well prepared and not trained in air combat. Dutch pilots had to learn the hard way how to combat Hayabusa 'Oscars' and Navy Zeros. And the time to learn was extremely short... Finnish pilots had much more time to adapt to Russian 'tactics'.

[@davidorrell6537]

Excellent production... best military aviation channel on KZbin... 👍

[@Sssaaatttuuurrrnnn]

Surprised to learn this. Years ago when I played War Thunder I had a Brewster Buffalo, and it was one of my favorite planes. Excellent turn rate and armament for its tier in Arcade. I wouldn't consider myself a fantastic pilot in that game but I found its performance good enough to bring it to uptiers.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

I would give that title to Bolton Paul Defiant. The Buffalo really never had margin for growth and performance suffered being overloaded from added equipment. Greg Boyington said about the Buffalo if kept lightly loaded it was more maneuverable then the Zero.

[@jamesricker3997]

The Roc was worse A British carrier turret fighter with worse performance

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

@@jamesricker3997 the Roc was just a Skua with a turret it was a existing design that took from Defiant.

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

the aircraft itself was not that bad - it served on as a nightfighter and later on as a trainer and target-tug. . The concept itself was wrong and then the pilots were not allowed to use the tactics they considered appropriate to get something out of the aircraft

[@freddieclark]

The defiant was only ever used by 2 squadrons in the daylight role. However it equipped (successfully) 13 squadrons in the night fighter role. It was never really intended to go up against enemy fighter aircraft.

[@andrewteekell4324]

Look up Italy's Breda Ba.88 - It makes the Defiant and the Roc look like the Spitfire!

[@Flapswgm]

Excellent coverage of a vintage and not well known aircraft. Thanks so much.

[@garryferrington811]

Very informative and well-researched. You make a good case.

[@monicsperryn8497]

The Buffalo performed well in Finland where conditions were cool and poorly in the Pacific area, where temperatures were higher

[@danielcamacho1913]

Also, the Finnish planes weren't weighed down by the inflatable raft and its container that the US Navy used, or a radio. Radios were for *rich* air forces, and they weighed hundreds of pounds at the time. I also read somewhere that Brewster delivered a lot of Buffalos to the USN with used engines, and Finland got brand-new engines outperforming their specs. In the Pacific, Japanese naval pilots had been fighting since 1937 and had years of experience by the time they fought the US Navy, while in Finland *both* air forces started with no experience, though it seems likely the Finns had better training than the commies.

[@LukeVilent]

"Brewster Buffalo, you are without doubt the worst WWII fighter plane I've ever heard of!" "But... you have heard of me!"

[@mpetersen6]

The worst US built production aircraft of WWII is a toss up between the Brewster Buccaneer or the Curtis Seamew. The Buffalo suffered as noted here by the overloading of the airframe.

[@jacksons1010]

Agree! The dreadful Brewster SB2A had a lot to do with the Buffalo falling into low regard as well. Brewster was BAD.

[@Shipnerd194]

Thank you for making this video - I love the buffalos and it's good to see someone shining this good light on them.

[@djbiscuit1818]

Great video, but it looks like a wildcat snuck in at 6:05. As if the poor buffalo wasn't going through enough already!

[@RexsHangar]

Oh snap, I think you're right! Poor Buffalo 😅

[@cabanford]

Chuckle

[@johnbockelie3899]

Pilot: is this a plane ?, where do you put a quarter in the slot to ride it ?.

[@K1W1fly]

@@RexsHangar Also at 9:40...

[@perttisalminen6357]

Great channel! Nice to see that "Finnish-part". That Lapland victories from "Stukas" are disputed. German's had no recorded losses in that day and there's also other uncertain issues. Case is interesting. Hannu Valtonen is reseached lots of the case. Buy the way: Merlin engined Fokker DXXI's climbing rate was better than Brewster. Actually only Messerschmitts beat that. I'm seen calculated table from this and interviewed some veterans.

[@pimpompoom93726]

A major problem was all the labor problems Brewster Company had, they contributed significantly to souring the US Navy on the design. This was combined with bad management decisions and lawsuits for misusing government funding and there you have it. With less Navy support, design development suffered and the aircraft always employed inferior engines when compared to the Grumman F4F Wildcat-who got preferential consideration. Buffalo was not a bad aircraft, but airplane technology was changing rapidly at that time and a company without deep pockets to fund continued development were at a disadvantage. Brewster were not up to the task of producing cutting-edge aircraft designs anymore and quickly faded away-the bad design Brewster Buccaneer bomber/scout was the final nail in their coffin. Though they did make some Corsairs under license during the War.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes. Brewster was probably the main problem with the Buffalo .

[@plumcrazyhemicuda]

Right, but the F3A Corsair was outright rejected by the British, then the US took them "For training purposes only with very limited aerobatics" because the wings would straight up fall off if you tried hard maneuvers with them.

[@dananichols1816]

Wonderful variety you are tapping into, Rex, press on! The Finnish history was great -- another facet of the Soviets getting a shocker of a shove back by such a smaller fella on their border (Stalin likely having previously executed most of his promising combat pilots, along with his entire veteran officer corps, before the Nazis turned on him). And, a solemn nod to the character and soul of the last Buffalo pilot to take off from Wake Island, giving his last lash at an enraged Japanese task force. That was like the vanguard note of what awaited almost all of the doomed crews of the Devastators, even then enroute to the grim opening rounds of those carrier air losses. Inclusion of the notes on Brewster's in-house turmoil, and the industry's collective chaos with predatory shysters, is great balance to your content... pile it on as you find it! If I may offer an excellent, further reference to the opening WWII engineering growing pains: Ian Toll's "War In The Pacific" trilogy does a fascinating, deep dive into several similar aircraft development stories -- most notably the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver (my uncle had been a tail-gunner on one); a host of no-go performance problems & generally despised by crew, the desperation of 'using what you got' during those opening years rammed that airframe down the fleets' complement anyway. Inclusion of all of the anecdotal and rest-of-the-background stuff adds to the sheer scope of what it took to get an airplane finally up and into the fight.

[@conservativemike3768]

It was a lovely little plane that just needed a bit of sensible re-engineering and TLC.

[@TheDing1701]

Great video! You've got a new subscriber, and I'm looking forward to binge-watching!

[@lilbigmorgan]

One of my favorite aircraft. Thanks for uploading.

[@mikemcintosh9933]

Always learning more about WW II aircraft. Thanks!

[@forthleft]

Cleverly done. Top quality.

[@TerryDowne]

Years ago I read a book called "Most Secret" about the RAF testing establishment at Boscombe Down. Boscombe Down's report on the Buffalo was heavily negative. Test pilots found that the Buffalo was tiring to fly because it was difficult to trim in level flight. The engine tended to overheat readily and carbon monoxide leaked into the cockpit.

[@straswa]

Great vid Rex! I like the Buffalo's design.

[@jamiesonwebb]

Excellent video. Thanks for all the research.

[@charlestaylor253]

The earliest models, (F2A1/A2), were actually quite decent fighters compared to most of their opponents in the early-war period. Especially in Finnish hands against earlier-gen Soviet aircraft such as the Tupolev SB series bombers, and fighters like the Polikarpov I-15 biplane and I-16 monoplane...

[@user-th5ss8fw7m]

Each F2A variant was better than its F4F counterpart, so if the Wildcat turned out to be a worthy opponent for the Zero, the Buffalo would do as well or even better. The problem was the pilots' poor training and lack of experience. Pappy Boyington liked this machine. He praised the good turning and maneuvering abilities of the aircraft: "the early models, ... were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but could turn and roll in a phone booth". This might reasonably have been expected with the low wing loading in earlier variants, which was comparable with the Mitsubishi A6M Zero's lb/sq ft” The Finnish Air Force produced 36 Buffalo aces. The top three were Capt. Hans Wind, with 39 Buffalo air victories (out of 75), WO Eino Ilmari Juutilainen, with 34 (out of 94) and Capt. Jorma Karhunen, with 25.5 (out of 31.5). First Lt Lauri Nissinen also had victories in the type (22.5 out of 32.5). The Brewster Buffalo earned a reputation in Finnish Air Force service as one of its more successful fighter aircraft which scored an unprecedented kill-loss ratio of 33-1. The non-Finnish Buffalo aces were: Geoff Fisken (RNZAF), with six air victories, and Doug Vanderfield (RAAF) with five individual kills, plus one shared. Alf Clare (RAAF) and Maurice Holder (RAF) had five victories each.

[@timerover4633]

For a very good book on the Finnish use of the Brewster, get a copy of Fighter Over Finland by Eino Luukkanen. He flew the Fokker D21, the Brewster, and the Me-109G.

[@Caseytify]

"Victim of circumstance?" Try early obsolescence and poor design. The clip describes how they had to add all sorts of weight to the aircraft just to keep it current. Worst airplane: I doubt it, but it _was_ a dog. Trying to dogfight Zeros was suicidal; even Hurricanes had trouble while using European tactics. The Norwegian example shows the design had robust cold weather characteristics, and could be effective in those conditions with experienced pilots. On the whole, it was severely obsolete by 1940.

[@cameronshank898]

Very interesting thanks for your excellent content!

[@eaglestrike6875]

Another excellent video!

[@RatPfink66]

6:05 a/c pictured is not a Buffalo, but an F4F-4 with Fighting 41 from USS _Ranger._ That unit was one of the first to fly the Wildcat beginning in late 1940.

[@tsegulin]

Two minor notes: 06:07 Discussion of Buffalo with improved 2 speed supercharger over a pic of a Wildcat. 09:37 Discussion of Buffaloes in the Battle of Midway over a pic of a Wildcat. Good documentary on the Buffalo, which I had generally assumed was a total failure, although I expected that was just due to bad design. I guess the Finns would disagree. Thanks Rex.

[@josephstevens9888]

I always liked the Brewster Buffalo... thanks for the overview!

[@darrengilbert7438]

Very interesting and informative video.

[@kyle857]

Honestly, for its time it was a good plane. Technology just was advancing so fast in those days

[@jacobjonm0511]

It was good for 1941 Soviet planes and nothing beyond that.

[@robbybee70]

that and honestly the Buffalo had uses but things were stretched pretty thin so it had to do more then it would really be good at, and they overmodified it for it's 3rd itteration,

[@robbybee70]

@@jacobjonm0511 well for a mid 30's plane.....oh and the video itself clearly shows that it was a fine bomber hunter if other more adept dogfighters were available to keep the cover busy, the issue is that was rarely the case

[@eerotillanen8914]

Finnish pilots also used a lot the boom-and-zoom tactics, where they did diving attacks to the Soviet formations below, shoot down their selected target and then climb up again taking advance of their momentum. If the enemy fighters tried to climb up they were shot down.

[@watcherzero5256]

Soviets always flew very close to the ground.

[@brettpeacock9116]

The Finnish-flown Brewsters had a 33 to 1 kill ratio. Compare that to the USN Grumman F6F Hellcat, which managed to achieve a 19 to 1 ration, and the yanks never shut up about it. In fact the Finns lost more Brewsters to Accidents and maintenance issues than they did in combat.

[@jessfrankel5212]

The Finns used a different formation to confuse the Russians who were also using outdated aircraft and weren't such great pilots. That's the reason for the great ratio. Also, the Finns were better flyers and tended to strip down their aircraft to the bare essentials. That increased its speed somewhat. But while the Finns were successful against the Russians with the Buffalo, in different hands against more modern aircraft, like the Zero, it was cannon fodder.

[@jkarra2334]

@@jessfrankel5212 Finns flew buffaloes in continuation war up to end of. WW2 and they racked kills against newer russian and lend lease planes ...

[@StevieWonder737]

It's worth noting that, particularly in the earlier years of the war, many of the Japanese and German aircaft (Stuka, etc) were fixed gear. The Buffalo was more than a match for them which inflated the kill ratio. Against Zeros and ME109s the Buffalo was nothing much more than target practice.

[@Whitpusmc]

Hey it was our plane so I’m happy either way! Clearly the Finns used their heads and had some hard core pilots!

[@martinpepperell8424]

its seems the Finns could fly anything successfully against the Russians!

[@fredferd965]

The Buffalo was really a 1930's aircraft. For an honest evaluation, it should be evaluated against the P-36, the Russian I-16, the Macchi 200 (early one with the radial engine), and perhaps the Japanese "Claude."

[@amerigo88]

Agreed. Also, it has a rather uncanny resemblance to the Polikarpov I-16. It's like the new-to-the-industry company cribbed from Polikarpov (and maybe the GeeBee racing plane) to quickly get into the Navy competition. They even shared the Wright R-1820 9-cylinder radial engine. Fortunately, the F4F Wildcat succeeded the disappointing Buffalo and served through to Tokyo Bay on the escort carriers. Like the P-39, the Buffalo couldn't compete once it was pushed to the limits of wartime development. I wonder how many bribes were provided by those crooked Brewster salespeople, a tactic more closely associated with Curtiss (see the Truman Committee investigations documents).

[@fredferd965]

@@amerigo88 Very interesting comments! And I agree!! Perhaps I'm imagining it, but there seemed to be some sort of inertia-at-rest infecting some of the older companies. They had gone past the joys of their youth and settled uneasily into middle and old age. The Wright Engine company seems to be one example. Some of their forward thinking people left them and became Pratt and Whitney. There was nothing wrong with Wright engines, but I'd prefer P&W if I were flying. This same mind set, whatever it was, seemed to happen to Brewster and especially Curtiss. After the P-40 they were infamous for not being able to design. And the P-40 was just an up engined P-36 anyway (sort of). The C-46 was a good plane, but it had plumbing problems. And the Curtiss Electric propeller was a horror. I don't know what Curtiss was thinking towards the end, but it was not good. Don't get me started here.

[@proofbox]

To be fair the Japanese A5M series [ Claude ] was a open cockpit fixed gear type not really a apples to apples comparison .

[@jerrybailey5797]

Another very interesting video

[@EstorilEm]

Wow at 13:30 it actually looked pretty damn good in that camo paint scheme with the yellow nose / tail stripe.

[@chunkblaster]

I think if Brewster had simply been a more experienced & slightly larger company it would've developed into a far superior aircraft

[@jjohnston326]

I love the image at 3 minutes 55 seconds talking of the surplus aircraft going to Finland. Notice the prominent swastika on the fuselage.

[@nathangillispie51]

Really interesting info from Finland

[@danielbritton8588]

The Buffalo was a 30's aircraft along with the P-26. They were like the Wildcat & the P-40. All obsolete at the outset of WW2. But, they still provided effective fighting platforms. However brief. I've never read about any accounts where the Peashooter was used in operations. Very few Buffalo accounts also.

[@carlgenco4779]

Nice video...funny how many pictures were Wildcats.

[@lewiswestfall2687]

great video

[@johnedwards1685]

I think fighter aircraft in world war 2 performed much like racing cars in modern times. Their useful life as cutting edge weapons was sometimes just a couple of months before the opposition gained a lethal advantage. Even successful designs were frantically modified and up-engined until the later models were far removed from early marks. I remember reading in Alex Henshawe’s (Spitfire test pilot) book that the last Spitfire was so much heavier than the first, it was like a mk1 with an additional 37 passengers and all their luggage. The Spitfire for all its romance, was badly outperformed by the FW190 for a long time, and had to be continuously up-engined. The P38, a brilliant and innovative design by Kelly Johnson, was removed from the European theatre as a liability, yet went on to great success in the East, but struggled for years with lethal compressibility troubles in the dive.

[@Eirik36]

I feel like Brewster has a horrible track record. They couldn’t even outsource the Corsair properly

[@carmium]

Good presentation, but far too many Grumman Wildcat photos inserted while discussing Buffaloes.

[@tariqsyed445]

Very interesting !!

[@mato5758]

I've read that the Finnish Buffalos had the lower powered engines, and 30 cal instead of 50 cal guns. So they did well with with a lower spec plane.

[@werre2]

finnish brewsters had 50cals or 13mm can't remember which and a domestic copy of the Revi gun sight

[@werre2]

finnish brewsters also did have one plate of armor behind the pilot's seat

[@JayGuitars1]

And I remember something about flipping an oil ring and getting less crankcase blow by. The Finns knew what they were doing.

[@harrimela9266]

At First Brewster had 3 Brownings 50cal and 1 30 cal mg that later was changed 50cal too

[@romaliop]

The lower engine power is misleading, since it was also considerably lighter. As much so, that in total the performance was better even with the lower power.

[@Donik0420]

I would love to know the name of the piece & artist from the paintings you show, if you have that info.

[@davidlee-ln9vh]

A channel called Mark Seven has a long series on the Finnish Brewsters .

[@alanrogers7090]

In a couple of the photos of Brewster "Buffaloes", the aircraft shown is actually Grumman F4F Wildcats. At least one in flight and another one crashed. In both instances, the narration is talking about Buffaloes. This can be disappointing to those, like me, who know the differences, and down right misleading to those that came here to learn about these aircraft, again, like me. I was watching another KZbin video about this aircraft, on Military Aviation History, and he had a chart that showed the weights of the different variants and how different countries had different equipment installed, adding, as you said, weight, to an already struggling engine. Engine upgrade, adds weight. Better radios, adds weight. Etc. Finland's variants, which did very well, by the way, were the lightest of all. Many Buffalo pilots there became Aces in that plane. Two sentences that were said in that video were, "The Buffalo had the misfortune to be the first of the new fighters. Once the US Navy bought it, the design was locked in place, and upgrades were not easily achieved." Thus, all the new customers, and the Navy, kept adding items, (and weight), without compensating with a better engine. All the fighters to follow had room to be upgraded built into their designs, like the Wildcat, which wnt through several variants before being replaced by the Grumman F6F Hellcat, itself a major upgrade of the basic Wildcat design with lessons learned from actual combat.

[@jerridf322]

@6:08 This is a Wildcat, not a Buffalo, @9:30 again....WRONG PLANE

[@1joshjosh1]

Excellent!!!

[@brianedwards7142]

Interesting view of a revetment at 9:15. Sandbags covered in cement render?

[@IntheBlood67]

Most Excellent!

[@tombogan03884]

With a lot of these designs the "original" version sucks. But it goes back to the drawing board, after a few repetitions you wind up with a good plane. It seems like the Buffalo never got that chance. The Navy seems to have said, "That's junk, buy the Grumman, we know them".

[@michaelleslie2913]

I read that the Buffalo had one of if the highest kill ratio during ww2 (although I may have misconstrued the info at the time )

[@mytmousemalibu]

Just a heads up, the plane featured at 6:07 - 6:21 is not a Buffalo, that looks like an early Grumman Wildcat. I really like the tubby little Buffalo, its definitely an underdog aircraft story and it has always appealed to me. I built one as a model kit as a kiddo. I still have it somewhere!

[@brucewelty7684]

Interesting! Thanks

[@marinegunny826]

Major Henderson flew one at the battle of Midway. The only thing he got out of it was having the airstrip on Guadalcanal named after him posthumously.😠

[@Channel-os4uk]

Claimed kills and confirmed kills can be two very different things..

[@Jim-Tuner]

Brewster was a terrible company in all respects. Most of their sales were done by two corrupt brothers who eventually did time in federal prison. The workforce was terrible as well. There were constant work slow-downs, strikes and even internal sabotage of aircraft. The government and the navy eventually threw out the management and took over the running of the company in 1942. But nothing did made the situation better. Brewster didn't even have an organized system of production and their factories were in places where they should never have been. Their main plant was in a multi-story building. They had an assembly line that literally went between floors up and down. They also often had to ship the completed aircraft disassembled out of the factory to be reassembled at an airport. They were such a terrible company that they should never have gotten any government contract. The lead aircraft designer was an ok guy. But the company as a whole was just a nightmare. They were corrupt, hired all the wrong people and had a production system that just didn't work.

[@rolsguitars]

Boyington said he liked this plane and he could turn it in a barrel, it needed a little more power , he also said the engineers got thier hands on it and ruined it , he preferred it to the P40 that he called an absolute dog . Not saying he was right, but it was his opinion, I talked to him at an aces reunion in the late 70s ...

[@proofbox]

I think the Bolton- Paul Defiant takes the cake for a useless warplane . Having no forward firing armament it was no match whatsoever for a ME 109 , and the good part is that it ate up supply's of desperately needed Merlin engines . This alone was more damaging to the RAF for its meager combat success , it was a throwback to WW 1 where it may have had some success hunting Zeppelins .

[@blue_beephang-glider5417]

One Finish fighter group destroyed 459 aircraft, the Commonwealth forces 80 and all told only 509 Brewster Buffaloes were made. So they destroyed 30 more enemy aircraft than their total production. My bet for worst goes with the Me 163 rocket plane, which sometimes exploded while unmanned on still calm days, sitting on the grass. It also ate the flesh off pilots with acidic fuel leaks.

[@seeingeyegod]

that plane was really fun in the early tiers of War Thunder, very good turner. Pretty sure they gave you the Finnish version basically.

[@trekaddict]

Either the war came three years too early or the Buffalo three years too late.

[@stephengardiner9867]

When flown "by the book" with unrealistic pre-wwII dogfight tactics as drilled into the heads of American, British Dutch... you name it... pilots... (and particularly against well trained Japanese pilots) it didn't have a chance. Yet, the Finns showed that it, when flown intelligently, rather than "by the book",. it was quite good at doing its job. The F4F Wildcat was no great improvement over the Buffalo and suffered as well until the pilots learnt not to fight on the enemy's terms. Once this happened, the Wildcat became a damned good fighter and versions continued in service to the end of WWII. The Buffalo was somewhat lacking in firepower but the enemy (usually the Japanese) were "flying Ronsons" and almost guaranteed to flame when hit. While not a cutting edge machine, its failings were more based on deployment and tactics. I would love to see one restored.

[@Charlesputnam-bn9zy]

Air Progress, an American aviation magazine in one 1965 issue had an article on the soviet Polikarpov I-16 fighter which fought in Spain, China & Mongolia against the nazis & Japanese, proving itself a true & tried combat plane, even against the best the Germans had in Spain, & even later in 1941. But I was astonished to read that, against the Finnish-manned American-made Buffalos, the I-16s were shot out of the sky whenever & wherever they appeared !

[@cherokee43v6]

Speed problem rectified by a new innovation in aircraft design... the wind tunnel... Orville and Wilbur Wright: "Say WHAT???"

[@920utdoors9]

I love your videos but my God idk of any 15 min videos I watch that have more ads pop up then during yours

[@MrEjidorie]

Though Brewster Buffalo were no match for Japanese Zero Fighters on the Pacific theater, they played an important role to defend Finland against Russian aggressors. I think Brewster Buffalo is underrated due to defeat on the Pacific theater.