Finland Loved The Brewster Buffalo, So They Copied It: VL Humu

In this video, we talk about the VL Humu, a Finnish-made copy of America's Brewster F2A Buffalo, a fighter plane that is often cited as one of the worst aircraft in all of World War 2. We first talk about how smaller countries build up their militaries in times of war and how the Brewster Buffalo was a popular export plane for countries like Britain and Finland. We then talk about Finland's strange journey in WW2, going from defending itself against the Soviet Union in the Winter War, to joining with Nazi Germany after Operation Barbarossa in the Continuation War, before then allying with the Soviet Union against Germany post-mid-1944 in the Lapland War.
We also talk about how the Buffalo was incredibly effective against the Soviets, so much so that it was one of the most successful in the entire war, before then Finland attempted to build up their air forces not through more imports, but through copying their beloved Buffaloes and creating the Humu in 1944, nearly a decade after the Buffalo first flew. We conclude by talking about why the Humu was overall inferior to the Buffalo and why it ended up failing.

[@puppetguy8726]

The story behind the molotov cocktail is actually a bit deeper. The Soviets were bombing Helsinki, but Molotov denied it and said they were dropping bread to the starving masses of Finland, thus the Finns named them Molotov's bread bombs, as a way to give thanks for the bread the Finns started serving cocktails to the soviets along the frontline, hence the Molotov cocktail.

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

that's funny though ; p

[@alanrogers7090]

The main reason that the American Buffaloes were crap, was mostly due to the interference of the US Navy wanting MORE out of the first monowing fighter in the service. They kept adding weight, (via equipment changes), but not adding a more powerful engine. The later models simply couldn't get out of their own way. As you stated, the Finnish Air Force did not need the heavy Naval equipment and they had a slightly better engine. It was a much lighter aircraft than the US Navy version.

[@christopherandersch1299]

Brewster was not a good company, their quality control was hideous,the only reason the navy chose it was that it was a monoplane,when other companies built biplanes , but Grumman,was inferior at first, then redesign made it better, the Buffalo was not suited as a carrier aircraft,the landing gear was not sturdy enough. However the Buffalo is better than nothing at all, and could be considered a stepping stone. P.s. Brewster corsairs had a tendency to shed its wings in flight, and none of them ever saw combat.

[@ulfosterberg9116]

It is also about the pilot. The US was expanding and its pilots had low amount of hours and experience still they had to face the ultimate dogfighters. In Finland every plane was worth its weight not in gold but in dimonds. Not just anybody would get a seat in a Buffalo.

[@alecfoster4413]

Correct. And if I recall, the Finns also removed some guns from the wings and made the plane even lighter and more maneuverable (especially the roll rate).

[@alecfoster4413]

@@christopherandersch1299 Interesting about Brewster and lousy QC.

[@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992]

​​​@@alecfoster4413 it's greatly exaggerated. Early models were on par with anything else the rest of the world had in the late 30's. Bf-109C had a fixed pitch two bladed propeller, as did the Hurricane MkIA and MkIb, the only real threat was the Zero, and even then the buffalo could get away from one in a diving turn. Yes there were more advanced versions being modified and built in 1939, but there were very few Bf109D and E series in service, and while there were plenty of hurricanes, a fixed prop and carburetor meant you had limits with that airframe. The Finns also had F2A-1's (B239) and the performance issues didn't arrive until the self sealing tanks, additional armo and radio were added to the F2A-3's (B339), so they really didn't remove much. What they DID do was change out the Browning .50's for .303 versions so they had compatibility with their Gladiators and other British aircraft that made up a good portion of their air force. They maintained a 26:1 ratio against the Soviets and that alone should be a testament to how criminally underrated and misunderstood this aircraft was.

[@StumpkillerCP]

The US Navy took the Brewster Buffalo and beefed it up for carrier service - heavy armor, six .50 machine-guns, arresting gear, tankage for almost 1,000 mile range, heavy long-range radio gear and batteries/alternators. The Finns took the frames (shipped with a lighter rotary engine than the Buffalo) and gutted out everything unnecessary, even removing two guns, life-raft, catapult attachments, arresting gear, not filling all the fuel tanks for 1,000 mile range, adding the seat back armor and a better gunsight, etc. It was like "rodding" a stock street car into a rum runner. The B-239 still has the record for the most enemy kills of a single air-frame (I can't lay my hands on the details at the moment). It was rugged, reliable in cold weather, relatively easy to fly and land (pilots loved it), had good visibility and often survived damage to return home. Not the best aircraft of WWII, but far from the worst. Just not suited for the use the US Navy expected from it.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Every kilo can make a difference

[@robertwarner5963]

Minor correction: ROTARY engines were only fashionable during WW1. Rotaries maxed out at 200 -300 hp. Rotaries are a sub-set of radial engines. The key difference is that rotary crankshafts are bolted rigidly to the firewall. OTOH radial engines continued to improve up until 1950. By the start of WW2, radials we’re producing 1,000 hp. and by mid-war 2,000 hp.

[@StumpkillerCP]

@@robertwarner5963 I stand corrected. Side note: the export B-239 used the same Radial engine as the Douglas DC-3. Easy to service and very reliable.

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

☺ ingenuity right there

[@johnlovett8341]

I saw the wreck of Lauri Pekuri's Buffalo in the Finnish Air Force Museum a few years back. Two things stood out to me. 1) There was good armour plate behind the pilot seat. 2) One of the rounds went through the Buffalo wing (left aileron if I remember) at nearly 90 degrees (I e. Nearly from straight above). Total deflection shot. Peruki was in the deck when he got jumped so maybe it was when he was pulling up. Great museum if you ever get to the Javaskala area. Go Finns!

[@Beorninki]

Is the only surviving Brewster still in Tikkakoski in Finland? If I remember correctly, the only surviving Brewster was bought in very shady circumstances by the US Navy. They never paid anything to the Finnish-Russian team that found the plane's crash site and raised it from a small lake in Russia. The machine was even claimed to have "emerged by itself" at a museum presentation in the USA.

[@Ah01]

@@BeorninkiIt is in Finland as a loan from those americans who purchased it from the fennorussian salvage team.

[@Ah01]

@@benwinter2420 Not that hard, millions of people speak it fluently, even kids. Btw. The town in question is called Jyväskylä, not Javaskala.. 😊

[@williammorris584]

13:02 appears to show the Brewster-built BW-393, which is thought to be the single individual airframe with the most kills in the WWII period - 41.

[@papadopp3870]

Thanks for that comment. Absolutely phenomenal- the knowledge found in the comments here. Each of us probably have expertise in one or other aeroplane and we tend to share it. You’re the first I’ve seen to have a grasp of the Brewster. It’s a pleasure.

[@mattilindstrom]

I'm a graduate of the engineering physics department of Helsinki Univerity of Technology (nowadays the Aalto University). Some 30 years ago I was the ditor of the history of it. For that we interviewd the founding father, professor (and later academician) Laurila. One of the stories he told us was that when the first Brewster Buffaloes arrived the Finns were feeling cheated, the planes came with all the avionics stripped out. There was a crash program to develop home brew avionics, which we did by the skin of our teeth. That was the starting impetus for the whole department.

[@stevedesroches1068]

One of the other readons for the disparity of performance between Finnish Buffaloes and the US, British and Dutch users was climate. The Wright 1820 had a tendency to overheat in tropical climates, causing power loss. Not a problem for an Arctic theater. Finn mechanics also field modded the engine by reversing the middle piston ring of each cylinder, installing it upside down to help cut down on oil loss.

[@terrybrown8539]

The main trouble with Brewster was the Brewster management. They even lost the contract to build the Corsair through poor quality and inept control. A local(ish) bloke Vic Bargh flew Buffaloes in Singapore and Burma and really liked them but recalled issues with engines (they were overhauled rather than new when fitted) and gun reliability. The 50 cals generally ceased fire after a few rounds which wasn't much use when you had a victim lined up. He did achieve kills while flying it. It would appear that the engines didn't deliver their rated HP so the plane was effectively underpowered. His book "Ketchil" is about his wartime service and is interesting with lots of personal photos. There is another New Zealand published book about 488(?) SQN operating Buffaloes and that likewise has lots of great photos - both are useful for modelers.

[@JanoTuotanto]

Dutch BWs downed couple Zeros in turn fight. Australians later used surviving Dutch Brewsters as "mock Zeros" in training.

[@vertmicko4763]

@@JanoTuotanto l read that the Dutch Buffelos had a larger engine than the others & some of the British aircraft had been fitted with used overhauled engines.

[@claveworks]

Just a quick heads up - the three Greek aircraft posters are my work - I give permission in this case, but please ask in future... Anything with 'Clavework Graphics' in that square font was drawn by me and is copyrighted. Just reply here and we can talk over email etc for the future - cheers!

[@lanagro]

The Amerikalainen Rautakone (American Hardware) as the Finns often referred to the Brewster Buffalo. The Finns showed when a lightened-up version could do in the hands of REAL pilots. The Humu was a plane made out of desperation, not a success, but made out of what was available and could have had some role to play. Would love to see you tackle VL's other two wonders: Myrsky ja Pyörremyrsky

[@jukkasavolainen5620]

Pyörremyrsky would have been a good plane, but it was developed too late, as was also the Finnish "Mosquito" night fighter concept called Vihuri with only one test plane build...

[@JanoTuotanto]

Amerikalainen Rautakone (American Hardware) ? You mean "amerikanrauta" - Yankee Rod ( rod as in hot rod )

[@danditto6145]

Probably didn’t hurt that Stalin had just just purged his Air Force and they were flying models that were ready to be replaced. That and they were not fight Jap Zeros one of the best dog fighters ever created. To dogfight a Zero was to die unless the pilot was completely incompetent.😂😂

[@pipopoikapelaa5468]

​@@jukkasavolainen5620Both Myrsky ad Pyörremyrsky were good, I'd say that the biggest problem with them was the poor quality wood glue used that was used.

[@wryyyy]

@@pipopoikapelaa5468 Good glue or not, both planes were maintenance heavy in the Finnish climate.

[@geesehoward700]

People seem to forget that Russia was also trying to gobble up Europe along with Germany before ww2

[@DIREWOLFx75]

Probably due to the tiny little problematic fact that it wasn't true. Especially considering that Russia didn't exist as a sovereign nation at the time. People forget a lot more about how USSR tried to create an alliance against Germany from 1933 to 1939, and it was only the rejections for that which caused the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty. Because the Soviet diplomatic attempts showed that of the major powers only France was even open to negotiations in good faith, Poland was just completely hostile, while UK and USA supported Germany against USSR.

[@geesehoward700]

@@DIREWOLFx75 so the head of the USSR wasnt a little country called "Russia"? A place that very much did exist and as a "sovereign nation". Russia didnt cease to exist with the collapse of the soviet union it became independent from it. so yes it is true.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@geesehoward700 "so the head of the USSR wasnt a little country called "Russia"?" If you think that, you have no clue about reality. That's like assuming that the capital city of a nation automatically rules the nation regardless where the people in the current government comes from. Russia had the single largest population of the SSRs, which by default meant many Russians held power. But fewer Russians held power in USSR than their part of the population total.

[@geesehoward700]

@@DIREWOLFx75 bollocks. Russia was in complete control. It's like saying India was in control of the British empire because there were more Indians and then Britain ceased to exist after the end of empire. Russia was totally in control. It had all the major cities, the industry, the key universities, the government, the capital. The USSR was the successor state of the russian empire after all. Russian people moved into the other soviet states causing the vast majority of the current issues in Eastern Europe today as Russia seeks to rebuild itself.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@geesehoward700 "Russia was in complete control." So, you're claiming that Stalin was Russian? Seriously? Not Georgian at all, oh noes. *lol* You're claiming that Brezhnev and Krushev had absolutely no connections to Ukraine? That Chernenko was totally not of Ukraine origin? Gromyko wasn't in any way Belarusian? Gorbachev wasn't 50/50 Russian/Ukraine? Mazurov wasn't of Belarusian ethnicity? Kirichenko wasn't Ukrainian? Melnykov wasn't Ukrainian? Podgorny wasn't Ukrainian? Beria wasn't Georgian? Kaganov wasn't Ukrainian? Ryzhkov wasn't Ukrainian? Tikhonov wasn't born in Kharkov? Alieyev wasn't Azerbajani? The above people are taken from just 4 of the highest offices in the USSR. Once you include the next step down in power, you also start finding a lot of Kazakhs and Uzbeks along with more people from the smaller central Asian SSRs. No, the powerstructure was absolutely NOT under Russian control, because Russia as such at the time did not exists as a party capable of controlling anything. It was an SSR. It had a lot of people in power because it was the single most largest population within USSR, but compared to its population size compared to the total, Russia was underrepresented in the USSR leadership. How historically incompetent can you get? "Russian people moved into the other soviet states" And VAST numbers of people from the other SSRs moved into Russia. Where today they are Russian citizens just as any others. Unlike the severe discrimination that ethnic Russians face in the US puppet states like the Baltic states. Including people who in 1991 were 3rd generation locals there!!!

[@bernardedwards8461]

Famous naval test pilot Capt. Winkle Brown tested the Buffalo and gave it a good report, saying it was pleasant to fly and very agile by British standards. Some good planes were made of wood, the Mosquito, the Heinkel Salamander, and the Me 163 rocket plane for example so wood is not to be despised.

[@mcal27]

A mirror of this is the success of the P-39 Airacobra success with the Soviet airforce and lack of with the US and European

[@cheapgeek62]

The Marines controlled the use of the P-39's in New Guinea and limited them to air to ground duty thus their lack of air to air success led then to be used more and more for air to ground duty. Yes they were somewhat crippled by lack of supercharging but at medium altitudes they could have held their own perhaps. My dad's CO Colonel Barrett flew one they had lightened up and it was a hotrod. They were in Port Moresby, Wewak, Hollandia and Biak among other places. Early on the P-39's had a lot of engine issues. My dad's high school classmate Wes Murphey crashed 4 of them. 3 of them in the ocean. They were tricky to get out of since the doors would not open until the cockpit was submerged.

[@mcal27]

@@cheapgeek62 great info. Thanks. I always had a soft spot for the P-39

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for a detailed, interesting video. I have huge respect for the Finns, with their insane courage and resourcefulness. To me, the 'Sky Pearl' is an excellent representation. I'm also glad the Humu was preserved. It's always annoyed me how people get the Nazi swastika confused with other uses, such as the Finns or even the American Navaho Indians. Anyone with half an eye and a functioning brain cell should be able to tell the difference.

[@herptek]

It is actually very common ancient symbol often associated with Indo-European peoples. One would think its use in Finnish Air force was weird since Finns are not actually an Indo-European people, unless one know about the happenstance through which it came to be adopted. The first plane of the FAF Bore the symbol due to being donated by a Swedish nobleman, and its use stuck. This was before the swastika had been associated to national socialist symbolism and long before there even existed any political movement to that effect in Germany. Similar ancient themes signifying comparable metaphysical concept in Finnish folk tradition have existed, for example so called tursaansydän, although it is unclear wether or not these had been adopted due to earlier contact with Germanic peoples or other Indo-European tribes, for example the Balts, whose pagan deities had occassionally had similar and related names as those in ancient Finnish traditions. Pre-christian Finns had probably borrowed at least some symbols as well as deities from either Germanic or Baltic peoples or both.

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

I'm not sure if the Finns possess insane courage or a complete lack of fear. I follow World Rally Championships.

[@terolukkari5633]

Thank you, This is the most properly made youtube video of the role of this plane in the Finnish airforce. Even the swastika thing was right. The first plane in Finnish airforce came from Sweden. It was personal plane of the count von Rosen. That is the reason there is always one plane in where it says von Rosen. Blue swastika was his personal symbol, that became symbol of the finnish airforce. This was 1918.

[@Richard-od7yd]

Plus the FINNS fought along side anyone fighting against the Russians . The FINNS would fight along side The Devil against the Russians.🫡🤔😉

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

About swastikas. They have been around for many many years before being generally condemned because of their use as a symbol for maniacal political group trying to dominate Europe. You can find the symbol in Native American art.

[@kejo703]

von Rosen was a nazi and Göring was his brother-in-law. Strange coincidence!

[@Holland41]

The reason the British and its allies wanted the Buffalo wasn't that they thought it was any good, but that they were desparate for anything that could fly. They actually hated the Buffalo, seeing it as a flying coffin when in service with British, Australian, New Zealand and Dutch pilots against far superior Japanese aircraft.

[@geoffsokoll-oh1gq]

The Japanese aircraft were not superior to the Buffalo or the Curtis Hawk. Japanese aircraft were lightly built and poorly armed. The Japanese navy armed the Zero with 2 7.7mm (.303 British) and 2 20mm cannon (a licensed Oerlikon gun very similar to the MGFF). The Japanese pilots were the best of the best. Sakai Soburo, who survived the war, was trained pre war, who said that of 50 trainees, only 2 passed. Superior pilots can succeed in poor aircraft. Remember, the Finnish claim that they didn't lose any Fiat G50's in combat.

[@darkiee69]

@@geoffsokoll-oh1gq And the Japanese pilots had honed their skills over China too, so they had a lot mor experience than the allied pilots who flew the buffalo.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

To be fair to the Bob Semple, the Japanese tanks were very light as well, so even if the Semples just functioned as mobile cover and bullet magnets they might well have allowed anti-tank rifle teams to get close enough to take out the Japanese tanks.

[@RamblerMan68]

The original KillDozer. Hehe. Awesome

[@WilliamDoyle-rb6lt]

American Aircraft including the Wright 1820 ran on 104octain fuel. The Finns had no access to this fuel and had to tune their engines to run on 87 octane. The innovative Finnish mechanics performed miracles.

[@HootOwl513]

I can't find any documentation about whether the F2A had folding wings or not. Most USN carrier aircraft in this period folded their wings. The SBD Douglas Dauntless did not because Heineman wanted a stout wingspar to handle the Gs of divebombing. I guess the short wingspan of the Buffalo was considered compact enough. With Wet Wings -- fuel carried inside the wing's interior -- folding capability would have compromised that.

[@immikeurnot]

The Molotov Cocktail's name is a great story. It was all because Molotov claimed to the foreign press that the Soviets were bombing Finnish cities - often using cluster bombs - that the Soviet sorties were humanitarian in nature, and that the bombers were transport planes dropping food and medicine. This earned the cluster bomb canisters the nickname "Molotov's breadbasket" and it's a rude host that allows a visitor to bring food and not provide drinks, so...

[@MIflyer5124]

Well, I suspect that a significant reason for the F2A-1's success in Finland was that it had excellent handling characteristics, with lower control forces than even the Spitfire Mk I. In contrast the Soviet I-15 and I-16 fighters were known to be quite hard to fly. Screw up a maneuver in an F2A-1 and you'd probably get away with it, but not so with the Soviet fighters, especially with inexperienced pilots. Stall-spin probably clobbered as many Soviet fighters as did the Finnish gunfire.

[@mebeasensei]

Australia did this with the T-6 Texan. Machine guns were added, and it became the CAC Wirraway. Then, part of that constituted the base for a local fighter called the CAC Boomerang in '43/'43.

[@cyberfutur5000]

I'm proud of you Finland, for not scrapping the Prototype. Good job there. Yet another thing the rest of the world can learn from you.

[@williamhigdon8728]

The Shvetsov M-63 engine was a improved version of the M-62 which was a licensed copy of the Wright R-1820 Cyclone (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shvetsov_ASh-62)

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

I think a big disparity between Finland and Soviet aircraft was a paucity of radios in the latter. Similar to the issues wirh tanks between Germany and USSR. Im intersted in how the Buffalo compared to the Wildcat which I think was its immediate successor in the Pacific.

[@eugenespicer3272]

I used to have a book on the F4 wildcat that said, and showed pictures of F4's being sent to Finland. They had British pattern joysticks and guns, and did very well against the Soviets as well.

[@wryyyy]

I have never heard of Finland buying Wildcats.

[@maxwedge5683]

@@wryyyy Maybe the FM version of the Wildcat manufactured by General Motors?

[@mattikauppi90]

Of my knowledge Finland had not a single Wildcat flying for FAF. They had Brewsters, Curtiss Hawks and one Warhawk captured from Soviets but no Wildcats. BTW, I'm a Finn living just some miles from Tikkakoski Airforce Museum, great place to visit This video is better than most of the videos of the same subject I've seen

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

Thanks for talking about the lesser powers air forces, very interesting video! Interesting history, Britain declared war on Finland but the USA never did.

[@masbeetleboy9169]

The best example of a "slapped together out of desperation" fighter in WWII would have been the Kawasaki Ki-100 of the Japanese imperial army air force, but this fighter was very effective. Maybe you should cover that plane next.

[@kevindolin4315]

I wouldn't say 'slapped together'. On January 19, 1945, B-29s destroyed the Akashi engine plant responsible for making the license-built BMW liquid cooled engine, which was also a constant source of problems. That left the IJAAF with 275 airframes with no engines. Using an FW-190, acquired from the Luftwaffe, as a template, they successfully faired a wider 14 cylinder radial bomber engine into the slim Ki-61 airframe. The resulting Ki-100 was lighter and had better maneuverability and handling characteristics. The engine was highly reliable and its only 'downside' was the frontal drag of the wider engine produced a slightly lower max speed. An outstanding fighter that was too few, too late. An exercise in expediency to be sure, but also excellent engineering, not 'slapped together'. Also look into the Yokosuka D4Y (Judy) dive bomber which went through the same process.

[@Sacto1654]

@@kevindolin4315 The engines they had to replace were actually derivatives of the Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine. The pilots that flew the Ki. 61's were not fond of the plane because of the unreliability of the Ha. 140 engine, which was derived from the Ha. 40 copy of the DB 601. But once Kawasaki switched to the Mitsubishi Ha. 112 radial engine (which had a good record of reliability), the much lighter plane proved to be only slightly inferior to the P-51, P-47 and F4U and definitely better than even the F6F.

[@kevindolin4315]

Um, I knew that. You basically went into more detail, covering the points I made: the unreliability of the engine (due in part by a sharp decline in quality control in parts and construction, plus dwindling strategic supplies); how the FW-190 showed how to fit a larger engine into a slender fuselage; how the resulting Ki-100 benefited from the lighter engine. Ironically, the destruction of the Akashi engine plant forced the Japanese to think outside the box and come up with a brilliant solution to the problem. The Japanese never really came to terms with liquid cooled engines (LCE). Once they weaned themselves off foreign made and designed LCE aircraft in the 20s and early 30s, they stuck primarily to radial engines. The only two production aircraft to use domestically designed LCEs were the the last IJAAF biplane, the Kawasaki Ki-10, and the Kawasaki light bomber, the Ki-32 (Ann). They used identical engines and the latter, at twice the weight of the little Ki-10, suffered as a consequence. Another factor often overlooked was the problem for the groundcrews. Much more used to working on the simpler radials, learning to work on the more complex LCEs, often in wretched conditions on some of the more primitive island airstrips, was a major challenge. You can add supply problems to that. The IJN suffered the same problem, as noted above, with the Yokosuka D4Y dive bomber. From Wiki: Early versions of the D4Y were difficult to keep operational because the Aichi Atsuta AE1P 32 (the naval designation for the same engine in the Ki-61) engines were unreliable in front-line service. From the beginning, some had argued that the D4Y should be powered by an air-cooled radial engine which Japanese engineers and maintenance crew had experience with, and trusted. The aircraft was re-engined with the reliable Mitsubishi MK8P Kinsei 62, a 14-cylinder two-row radial engine as the Yokosuka D4Y3 Model 33. I find it interesting that the USN stuck strictly with radials, while the USAAF had a mix: LCEs in the P-40, P-38 and P-51 and radials in the P-47, P-39 and all bombers. @@Sacto1654

[@neillh]

Thanks for sharing another great video, the Australian made WW2 Boomerang plane & Sentinel tank is a good example where we could not get planes or tanks

[@MrGeneralPB]

no, findland didn't throw in their hat with the germans, the soviets bombed and attacked them first - then they fought the soviets alongside the germans - a vital distinction in 41

[@tarapita]

5:17 It was far cry of mission accomplished. Leningrad, that had population twice as big as Finland, was in no danger whatsoever. It was pure aggression with intention to occupy whole country and advance from there to Sweden, Norway and rest of Europe.

[@stevenkostamo1279]

Finnish pilots were fighting for their lives, family and home, Russians didn't have any personal reasons or losses at stake. "you can run faster scared, than angry" A person willing to fight to the death is far more dangerous than someone just fighting to gain some advantage in life.

[@cyberfutur5000]

Some things just never change.

[@robert-trading-as-Bob69]

I wonder if the poor performance of the Buffalo in British hands was due to a lack of trust in it's performance, and the hot, humid conditions of the Far East. The de Haviland Mosquito did not perform as well in the Far East, for example, mainly because the humidity and heat interfered with the plywood and glue. Perhaps the cooler temperatures in Northern Europe and short distances involved also played a role in the Buffaloes success.

[@Beorninki]

Is the only surviving Brewster still in Tikkakoski in Finland? If I remember correctly, the only surviving Brewster was bought in very shady circumstances by the US Navy. They never paid anything to the Finnish-Russian team that found the plane's crash site and raised it from a small lake in Russia. The machine was even claimed to have "emerged by itself" at a museum presentation in the USA.

[@johninnh4880]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post this fact packed video. Who would have known. I'll watch this a few times to try to remember everything crammed into it. This was a lot of work. Color me impressed.

[@DavidAndrewsPEC]

The factory name ... that, and I say this as a foreigner who has learned a lot of Finnish, was a very valliant attempt. Well done. Good video!

[@davidwoods7408]

The Finns liked the Buffalo and the Russians liked the Aerocobra.....strange but: go figure.

[@lancerevell5979]

These planes were well suited to the use those countries put them to. Not so with the USN. Our planes are always subject to bloat due to "improvements". Some planes can transcend this - P-51, F-16, etc

[@potatoradio]

Kinda makes sense given hard vs soft factors. If you have aircrew and pilots who are generally familiar with a plane logistically it would be easier than having a 2nd or 3rd aircraft. (Figuring the BF-109s they did get.) Plus a rugged air-cooled plane might do better out in the sticks than most other types. Particularly as they likely tried keeping anything they had in the air as much as humanly possible. As long as it was 1/2 way a fair fight against soviet gear it would have faced.

[@paulfrantizek102]

That males sense generally, but the changes they made here would have played hell with the plane's center of gravity, making its handling characteristics completely different.

[@werre2]

I've been inside a B239 in the process of restoration :)

[@robmclaughjr]

Stalin demanded territorial concessions from Finland. This wasn't some misunderstanding. My grandfather fought in the winter war. Lost the family farm to Stalin.

[@eottoe2001]

This was your best one. TY

[@cbearabc]

Who knew about the Humu, thanks now I know about the Humu too. 🤔😀

[@Galenthias]

Going by Finnish Wikipedia, it seems like the Humu engine was always intended to the the Shvetsov M-63, but it took until 1943 to get hold (from Germany) of some manuals to the engine, allowing for the correct tuning of them. And it was only after this finetuning that the M-63 started performing equally to or better than the Wright engine of the Brewster.

[@neves5083]

Happy new year boi! Hey it would be super cool to learn some about early helicopters too, o saw that flying banana and i fell in love with it

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

Thank you. This is extra interesting. ❤

[@camrsr5463]

24:24 I get it..."its snow wonder"....Finland!

[@treystephens6166]

I love the Brewster Buffalo too‼️

[@danabogue1804]

Much like the early models of the F4U corsair the U.S. Navy wasn't keen on its Carrier handling characteristics, not that (for the times) it was a bad aircraft, it just wasn't well suited for carrier operations! The landing gear wasn't robust enough for repeated hard landings and the stall characteristics weren't optimal for carrier landings! It also didn't have provisions for wing folding, which limits the number of aircraft carried! The Grumman F4F-3 didn't have folding wings either which was rectified in the dash 4, but made it heavier (with the addition of 2 more .50 cal) but it was better suited for carrier ops!

[@wiltzu81]

Interesting history. Thank you.

[@sdraper6940]

The Finish Brewsters also shot down Lend lease Hurricanes, Spitfires and P 40s

[@wordsmithgmxch]

Okay, so the Buffalo was crap when it went up against the varsity in South Asia, but shone against a Russian "B" team. Perhaps more to the point, though, it played a notable role in keeping the Finns Finnish and the Russians ... OUT! The Finns love the Buffalo because they love their freedom -- they don't think too highly of the Russians, either -- and they really, really love their country.

[@danbenson7587]

You’re exactly on target. The initial cadre of Japanese naval pilots were the best trained in the war and were flying a ‘mystery’ airplane in the Zero. As victors write history, this point obscure.

[@darkiee69]

Without all the naval equipment the buffalo lost a lot of weight and became the fighter it was ment to be.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

If they had problems to build a real 1 to 1 copy of the Buiffalo and had to make changes like woodspar wings, they would not have been able to build any more modern plane with superior abilities either. So trying to reproduce what they had and knew makes a lot of sense.

[@billietyree2214]

“Pappy” Boyington is reported to have commented on the Buffalo as being able to “do a loop in a phone booth”. American Army generals, still preparing for WWI slapped their swagger sticks against their cavalry boots and demanded that the planes be equipped with armor and armament equivalent to that of a Stuart tank. Might as well have poured it half full of concrete. The Finns flew the plane as it was designed to fly and scored high with it.

[@PurpleRhymesWithOrange]

So it was a bad carrier based plane but did well with a land feild.

[@Tiax776]

Finland was in desperate need of planes so they tried to get anything they could get their hands on. Eventually there was an agreement between Finland and the US for Brewsters. When the Brewsters came to Finland (after Finland had paid quite a premium for those planes since the US didn't even care about those planes in the first place) a lot of the equipment which were shown for the Finnish delegate during their visit. Basically the US sold "fully loaded" planes and delivered base model planes. Well the Brewsters were actually decent planes but had the same issues as all the other planes. Not enough of them and not enough spare parts etc.

[@christopherandersch1299]

Weather also played a part, Air cooled engines did not overheat like they did in the far east

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

I can't think of an American WWII naval fighter that used a liquid cooled engine can you? Therefore overheating in the far East is moot.

[@christopherandersch1299]

@@patrickgriffitt6551 there were a few attempts, like the Bell Aerobonita, a navalized version with a tail hook and set up as a taildragger,and a P-51 ,fitted with a tail hook, but the navy liked the simplicity and ruggedness of radial engines ( imagine a sea salt corroded radiator?) radial engines did not like the heat of the Burma theater,and would overheat on the ground, but in Finland , they didn’t have that problem,planes fly better in cold air,than super hot air

[@christopherandersch1299]

@@patrickgriffitt6551 actually the navy had quite a lot of “fighters” that used liquid cooled Allison’s, 3 to be exact,and “flew” thru the water and not air, I’m speaking of the PT boat, as that’s as close as you are ever going to get.

[@floycewhite6991]

Vladimir Rezun says the Soviets scored a major victory by taking the Mannerheim Line in the dead of winter, even though their main column was trapped in the expected ambush along the single road. He asserts it was the first of a two-step advance to take the Finnish nickel mine and to close the Gulf of Bothnia to barges delivering iron ore from Sweden to Germany.

[@PalCabral]

In Finland they are real men, no humu’s there!

[@maxwedge5683]

Brewster Buffalos were built in Warminster PA at the old NAS Johnsville. Not far from where I live.

[@Yaivenov]

In before KZbin bans the video over a symbol in the thumbnail!

[@benwinter2420]

It's a long story about a time not all that long ago , but the swastika is a accurate representation (with other patterns well known as in the cross 4 & 8 & Maltese cross etc) of a phenomena known as synchrotron radiation . . basically electrons expelled at right angles from a very high current (google the images from experiments in high energy labs) . . the planetary billiards game aka war in heaven Sun swap electric

[@TXGRunner]

I find this hilarious. As a Grumman Wildcat fanboy, I've never liked the Buffalo and think the US Navy erred in giving Brewster the first contract from the mid-30's trials. I'm not a sore winner though, and fortunately the Navy figured it out with only minimal, albeit tragic, losses. What always angered me about the Buffalo (as a kid) was how model companies seemed to have many more Buffalo kits than Wildcat kits. Why? The Wildcat was one of only a handful of designs to see frontline service throughout the entire war. The Wildcat's war record is impressive, especially given it's performance limitations; far more impressive than the Buffalo. Thousands of Wildcats were built, but only 500 Buffalos were ever made. Fifty years later, I'm starting to get over it and just laugh...in part because there are much better Wildcat kits now, and also because I recognize some people will always champion an underdog. I'm pleased the Brewster found a niche where it was useful. While not allied, at least it was shooting down communists, so it was still doing good from a certain viewpoint. Kudos to Brewster and the Finn pilots who were able to use it to great effect.

[@rkitchen1967]

"Aircraft" is both a singular and a plural term

[@lancerevell5979]

Yep, one of my pet peeves "S" should never be put on the end of 'aircraft', 'spacecraft', etc.

[@rkitchen1967]

@@lancerevell5979 KZbinrs seem to copy each other by using this incorrect grammar. I wonder how many of them actually complete their own research.

[@ironwolfF1]

The tongue in cheek comment about the Finns was that they fly a cardboard box if they added wings to it.

[@stuckinthe60s69]

If you want to read about the Finns receiving their Buffaloes, read "ACES WILD" by Robert A. Winston. Good book from the Brewster pilot who trained the Finns on this plane.

[@tomstulc9143]

Finland succeeded in polishing a turd. The #1 defency of the Brewster was its oil leaking all over windows. They cured this problem probably with positive crankcase ventalization. they also lightened the airframe. Mostly the buffalo was deployed against inferior Soviet aircrafts and stayed clear of fighter to fighter dog fights.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

13:00 https: //fi.wikipedia. org/wiki/Luettelo_Lentolaivue_24:n_ilmavoitoista_ja_sotatoimitappioista List of air squadron 24 wins and losts in whole wars time with Fokker, Brewster and Messerschmitt fighters, include enemy airplane types. The BW is Brewster.

[@nickraschke4737]

Good stuff.

[@petrusinvictus3603]

If you put enginers to modife a horse you come up with a camel, not good way! Thanks for the video!! A lot of stuff was new to me. Happy Landings!

[@isoantsa]

Few things i have to comment on.. Claimed victories are as said dubious at best. But in Finnish airforce getting those victories needed witnesses and sometimes still were not credited to pilot. There are few cases where pilot had more kills than papers show just because they didnt bother to report them because no witnesses or even some cases because personal issues with senior officers. In essence i am willing to say that when it comes to kills, Finnish stats are in the more believable side. Second thing. It is true that 41-42 most enemy fighters were the same age group as Brewster. But 43-44 they faced everything Soviets had and Land lease gave them. 1943 especially was succesfull to Brewsters in the gulf of Finland and there enemy had LA-5, Airacobras etc.

[@biggiouschinnus7489]

The versions sold to Britain have a bad reputation because they had an inferior engine to the type sold to Finland, were significantly heavier, and were flown by inexperienced and poorly trained pilots.

[@richardsiciliano8539]

The Buffalo had lots of mechanical issues in the heat of the tropics. Much more suited to Finland

[@jamesgoodman8868]

Method-Man-Machine the skill and management of an air force matter more than the aircraft/ technology.

[@janmale7767]

The Finns amaze me!, they take anything and make it work!, a truly remarkable people! Look at the world homelessness problem, the Finns solved it by building free housing for their homeless people calling it 'housing first' ! They exell at things they do a nation of aces!

[@Caldera01]

The side notation at 3:20 is slightly inaccurate. The Finnish Swastika is still in use for example in the Presidential medallion, the Presidential flag and some other places, but it is no longer in use on the Air Force Academy, the Distinctive unit insignia still does however have the swastika. Also while the Finnish swastika is not directly linked to the Nazi symbol, it does have a weak link to fascism through it's origin as Eric von Rosen from whom the symbol is from, had a leading role in the Swedish fascist National Socialist movement bloc. Ergo while not directly linked, the Finnish swastika does have common ancestry with the German one.

[@antdavisonNZ]

see wikipedia "Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century" for many examples - have seen it on a masonic lodge here in NZ, my understanding its historic, pre national socialist, use related to good luck

[@Caldera01]

@@antdavisonNZ In its generic form, yes, but we are talking about a very specific swastika, not a generic one. The Finnish Airforce's swastika comes specifically from the Swedish Count Eric von Rosen. Eric Von Rosen adopted the Swastika as his personal symbol whom may I remind you is the brother-in-law to Hermann Göring and a leading figure of the Sweden's National Socialist party. Yes, Finland has plenty of non-fascist uses of the swastika, such as in the presidential flag, in arhitecture and many other places. However the Finnish Air Force swastika does have an undeniable link to fascism, which is why it was removed while other swastikas in our heraldry is still allowed to remain. I really don't see the need to muddy the waters and mix Hermann fucking Göring's brother-in-law's personal Swastika to be something else than it is. Even if it didn't start out as an inherent Nazi symbol, it sure has hell has a connection to it through more than just a mere coincidence.

[@darkiee69]

@@Caldera01 When Von Rosen gifted the Thulin D to the Finnish air force, with his blue swastika on it for good luck, he didn't yet know Göring, and it was many years before he got involved with the nationalists. The nazis didn't adopt the swastika until 1921.

[@Caldera01]

@@darkiee69 So he got his fascist ideas after meeting Göring? If only his sister had never married Göring, he never would have gotten into that ideology. Also a symbol adopted by a fascist isn't a fascist symbol unless another fascist group adopts it? Nice logic there. I never claimed that the Finnish Airforce swastika was fascist because it was a swastika. I said it was a fascist symbol because it was given to us by a person who himself was a fascist. The German swastika never enters this equation.

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

@@Caldera01 The undeniable link is mother of all cherry picks.

[@williamleadbetter9686]

It didn't help that the US engines in the B-239's had the oil scavenger rings installed incorrectly something both Swedish & Finnish mechanics discovered after engine teardowns this was true of both countries and the engines they received from the US.

[@iSheaMan]

Finally can't take the sing-song narrative style ad quit after 20 minutes of listening!

[@rb239rtr]

Somehow, I believe the Olympic sport- Biathlon- was inspired by the winter war

[@timbrwolf1121]

I kind of believe the kill claims simply because the fins next solution was scavenging russian engines. There sure had to be a lot of them lying around for that to seem viable.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

And from relatively low-speed crashes too.

[@wongsoongcheng1245]

The Buffaloes scored heavily against the Soviet's I16 Polikarpov. But in Malaya they were badly mauled by the Japanese Zeroes.

[@timoterava7108]

The Brewsters (never called "Buffalo" in Finland) scored also against MiG-3, LaGG-3, Hurricane, Jak-1, Tomahawk, "Spitfire"(?), La-5, Jak-7, Airacobra, Jak-9, "Mustang"(?), Warhawk

[@R005t3r]

I saw this and said, Oh you can't be serious. Apparently they were.

[@Leroy-Jenkem]

they called it sky pearl because of the unpainted metal shining

[@russellesimonetta9071]

Uhh American fighter pilots said ,,the best way to fight enemy planes with the buffalo was to not take off!!!!

[@derekpierkowski7641]

👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@Riccardo_Silva]

It seems to me that the US military had a weird habit of spiking their planes through senseless requitements. Had the P39 and the P40 been equipped with high altitude superchargers, they would surely have been able to stand on a par with the 109; overloading their Brewsters seems to be another instance of this unrealistic behaviour.

[@dukenukem8381]

"F2A buffalo worst aircraft of ww2" Polikarpov I-16 : am i a joke to you?

[@Keryaken133]

Unrelated comment, the VL Humu is actually a killer in War Thunder, shreds through anything

[@wryyyy]

You might be confusing it with the Buffalo (B-239 is Buffalo). Humu isn't in WT. Myrsky and Pyörremyrsky are.

[@PrairieCossack]

Soviet offer territorial exchanges to Finns was a ruse to begin with. Soviets put up unacceptable demands basically trying to blackmail Finland

[@soggycracker5934]

More like Axis aligned, to OTHER Axis aligned...

[@nicolek4076]

An Americanism that always tickles me - "Right. I'm going to go ahead .... and stop".

[@hoodoo2001]

Anyone calling the Brewster F2A worst is an idiot. The F2A-3's were not designed to be air superiority fighters but long range recon fighters. They were misused at Midway but still made an impact as they interfered with the bombing of Midway and the Japanese were not satisfied with the results. This led to a huge mistake by the Japanese to change armament over and again which led to disaster.

[@waltergolston6187]

A just in case reason turning into a just how well did we do question so let us fly it to see.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

performance of the Buffalo in Finland I think has as much to do with the Soviet Airforce than the Finnish Airforce. Red Airforce was lets say, very incompetent throughout the whole war, even by wars end it really wasn't comparable to the German Airforce, let alone the Western Powers like the USA/UK. The fact that even by wars end the Luftwaffe a shadow of it's former self, and putting minimal of what was left of it's forces on the East Front, was still performing VERY WELL vs the Red Airforce should be telling. With it's most successful squadrons being on the East Front. I'd argue the East Front against the Soviet Union was a perfect place for well trained pilots in Buffalo's to shine.

[@guykurtz422]

I built 1/72nd of this many years ago />_

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Finland wasn't an ally of Germany but a co-belligerent. The Finnish forces never crossed the pre-1940 Finnish-Soviet Union border.

[@Beorninki]

Of course we crossed this border. Do not spread lies. And we were ally of Germany too, we need to choose between Hitler and Stalin and there was strong fascist far-right political movement in Finland those times. It is better to be honest, Finns have no good options to choose. We choose Germany and loose war BUT we dont loose our independency.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@Beorninki I stand corrected on the border crossing However, many sources, such as the Holocaust Encyclopedia, only list the countries that signed the Tripartite Pact (Italy, Japan, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia) as allies and Finland as a co-belligerent as Finland never signed this pact or entered into any formal treaty alliance with Germany.

[@Beorninki]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 It is true that Finland was not formally ally of Nazi-Germany but in practical level we were allies. It is not nice but there is no nice things in war. USA and GB were allies of Stalin, greater mass murder than Hitler. Nazies murder jews and gypsies, bombers of USA and GB bombs cities of Germany (good example is bombing of Dresden) and drop atom bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War crimes, crimes against humanity. We Finns were allies of Germany, there was concentration camps in Finland and in those camps died lot of russian POW:s because of just fascist attitudes and values, we don't behave like human beings. We need to be honest and try to learn what we do and learn how to NOT to behave next time. Man and countries need to fight against tyrants but beware that there is difference between you and tyrant.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@Beorninki there are dome arguments about whether or not aerial bombardment of civilian dwellings was illegal at the time of WW2 as there was no Hague Convention on Aerial Warfare. But, for sake of argument, lets say the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which states it is legal to bomb any civilian dwelling that is defended, thus as Dresden hadvflak guns itbis a defend location and therefore making the bombardment of Dresden legal and not a war crime. I agree that Finland can be called a de facto ally even though not formally one.

[@Beorninki]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 As we know, the Allies wanted to blame the leadership of Nazi Germany also for the bombings of London and other bombings of civilians. After thinking about it a bit, they decided to drop these accusations, because it would have been a bit difficult for the winners to accuse others of crimes they themselves have committed and even more extensive and cruel. Horrible crimes were committed by all parties to the war. Dresden may have had anti-aircraft guns, but it was not a military target. Unless mass killing civilians is a "military" act in some doctrine. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had air defenses of any kind that would have had any effect on the bombers. Hitlers Germany was necessary to defeat, but one should not imagine that one side was noble and gallant and the other side had monsters. In Orwell's books, pigs eventually become people. In Hugo Pratt's comic book, a character states this: There is only one struggle going on in the world, the struggle between good and evil. Sometimes you think about it, which side are the good ones?

[@clarkbutler]

cool logo

[@arcadianlhadattshirotsughW33Z]

as good as your videos are, your logo lies to my face...

[@neilgill2269]

One American aviator shot down 2.zeros & rammed a third, and still got home, look at Rudel the stuka pilot! He blasted everything tanks battleships,aircraft! If you can't win,cheat! It's war! Aggressive attitude, Boyington, Bader, Gibson, Rudel, no fear, the Buffalo was cute,like a fat blonde, and the finns weren't pushovers,! Unlike this country at the minute!

[@PrairieCossack]

Regardind Finlands 'dream of expansion' - this is very weak theory, since during the Continuation war Finns only reclaimed their lost territory and refused all and any Germans pressure to go any further.

[@stephensmith4480]

Ah, the good old Lend Lease. People think that the good old USA Helped us out of the goodness of their Heart, they didn't, they charged us a fortune. The last payment was made in December 2006 For 45.5 Million Pounds and 12 Million pounds to Canada. Special Relationship ???

[@mikepette4422]

the first 4 mins are very pointless, in fact I skipped to the 10 min mark and i doubt I missed anything regarding the VL Humu

[@tomhenry897]

Better then what the Soviets had Better pilots Be clay pigeons for an ME or spit