Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw

Yeah, I love this game too but I think that everyone I know was using ctr+click or ctrl+shift+click for a multiple selection for some time now. User interface is not user friendly but hostile and it really sucks. Face it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw

User interface is not user friendly but hostile and it really sucks. Face it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And rudder pedals... And a throttle... And maybe one of those IR headbands that lets you control stuff by looking at it...

Sheesh...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vladd

Some British / Australian pilots preferred the Buffalo over the Hurricane, having flown both types (See Hurricanes over Singapore and Buffaloes over Singapore  by Brian Cull). The Buffalo could certainly turn tighter than the Hurri, but was deficient in some other respects.

On the whole, there does't seem to be much in it between the two types. But the Buffs had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, whereas when the Hurris arrived the Allies had a better idea about what they were up against and what not to do when taking on a Ki27 or Ki43... 

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


However, now that I am getting some expeinces with mods, I don't find them much better. They simply trade off one inaccuracy for another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Niceguy sez: "Attention!
<-------The aliens have come to take away all the sexy good looking people. I just wanted to say goodbye. "



Isn't that nice?....Niceguy is saying goodbye to those of us who are leaving!

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


However, now that I am getting some expeinces with mods, I don't find them much better. They simply trade off one inaccuracy for another.

BAAH!! A pox on your home....

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I wonder how much of the RAF problems in the Far East were caused by a 'reversal' of capabilities.  In Europe the RAF fighters were, in the main, better able to out-turn their opponents in dog fights with German types being more capable of high speed dives etc. 

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I wonder how much of the RAF problems in the Far East were caused by a 'reversal' of capabilities.  In Europe the RAF fighters were, in the main, better able to out-turn their opponents in dog fights with German types being more capable of high speed dives etc. 

I have heard it suggested that this was a big problem. That the RAF pilots tried to dog fight with a superior dog fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr reed

Am I the only one frustrated "despite much modding" (so it s not only stock stuff i m pointing out)with how aircrafts in RAF service (and RAAF and RNZAF)are represented. Just comes to my mind after reading much threads on how poorly represented are some japanese aircrafts (Nate, Oscar, etc...) Just finished reading a few new things to me on air war over malaya, NEI and Burma, and I have to confess that despite what the legend says neither pilots nor some of their machines are to be blamed. Just to make myself clear with a precise example. I'm pretty sure the Brewster Buffalo wasn't the outclassed and outdated flying barrel like most books describe them. IMHO its stats are "quite inaccurate" and it s basically fighting against overwhelming numbers and appaling leadership (to make it short) that actually wiped out the RAF early in the conflict.
any comments ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr reed

IMHO its stats are "quite inaccurate"

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr reed

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr reed

IMHO its stats are "quite inaccurate"

Rereading my first message I noticed something that may cause some misunderstanding. My big mistake when I said "its stats are quite inaccurate" Well "quite" wasn t an appropriate word ! I feel the Buffalo MKI is somehow underated, especially if other aircrafts such as the Ki 43 Oscar and Ki 27 Nate have their data tweaked one more time. Just wanted to make this clear. Obviously we are aware of the flaws plaguing this aicraft but Buffalo Squadrons tasked with both air defense and ground support roles didn t fare bad after close analysis. RAAF squadrons were expectionnaly effective at the later but it s the additions of many things that sealed their fate and labelled the aircraft as total dawg as Juliet7bravo says! But facts are that british used a denavalized version of the F2A2 with a new 10foot 1 inch Hamilton Standart proppeller, a MKIII reflector gunsight, more armor plate for the pilot and armor glass panel installed behind the winscreen. Of course weight upped from 6500 pounds (about 900 more than the us navy model and it brought it max speed down to 330 mph; lowered its climb rate to 3000 ft per min and service ceiling to 27 300 feet decreasing maneuverability. Some of the original Cyclone engines were remanufactured ones too ! Even some were stripped by ground crews of some of the 50.cal MG in a desperate attempt to engage japanese on better terms

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN
The problem with the Buffalo is that it was obsolete before the first one came off the line. In Germany they had been building the far superior 109 for 2 or more years (if memory serves me) before Buffalo came to production not to mention the very impressive Hurricane. I guess the buffalo may fall into the political backoffice purchase someone had money tied up in them so they produced an obsolete fighter anyway.

It was more in the same class as the A5M which were pretty much obsolete also in 1941-42. But at least they started their career in late 1936 or early 37 when the design may have been more useful. The buffalo was just 3 years too old when it started production. The UK seemed to think from my opinion that they would be a stop gap in lack of good front line fighters production.

The Finnish had great success with the Brewsters but they modified them and Soviet training and tactics were not equal to early Japanese on any level. Not saying Soviet pilots were not good but their experience and skill was greatly different from pilot to pilot and incompetence ran amok.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr reed

Am I the only one frustrated "despite much modding" (so it s not only stock stuff i m pointing out)with how aircrafts in RAF service (and RAAF and RNZAF)are represented. Just comes to my mind after reading much threads on how poorly represented are some japanese aircrafts (Nate, Oscar, etc...) Just finished reading a few new things to me on air war over malaya, NEI and Burma, and I have to confess that despite what the legend says neither pilots nor some of their machines are to be blamed. Just to make myself clear with a precise example. I'm pretty sure the Brewster Buffalo wasn't the outclassed and outdated flying barrel like most books describe them. IMHO its stats are "quite inaccurate" and it s basically fighting against overwhelming numbers and appaling leadership (to make it short) that actually wiped out the RAF early in the conflict.
any comments ?

The problem with the Buffalo is that it was obsolete before the first one came off the line. In Germany they had been building the far superior 109 for 2 or more years (if memory serves me) before Buffalo came to production not to mention the very impressive Hurricane. I guess the buffalo may fall into the political backoffice purchase someone had money tied up in them so they produced an obsolete fighter anyway.

It was more in the same class as the A5M which were pretty much obsolete also in 1941-42. But at least they started their career in late 1936 or early 37 when the design may have been more useful. The buffalo was just 3 years too old when it started production. The UK seemed to think from my opinion that they would be a stop gap in lack of good front line fighters production.

The Finnish had great success with the Brewsters but they modified them and Soviet training and tactics were not equal to early Japanese on any level. Not saying Soviet pilots were not good but their experience and skill was greatly different from pilot to pilot and incompetence ran amok.

quote:


Brewster Buffalo Mk I
Last revised December 26, 1999


In early 1940, the British Purchasing Commission ordered a total of 170 Model 339Es in two separate contracts under the British designation Buffalo Mk. I. This was a major turnaround, since as recently as October of 1939 the British Air Ministry had declared the Brewster fighter as unsuitable for RAF use. However, they were deemed suitable for use in the Far East.

The 339E was basically a denavalized variant of the F2A-2, powered by an export-approved Wright R-1820-G105 Cyclone engine of 1100 hp. A number of changes were made to bring the aircraft up to current European combat standards: a British-built Mark III reflector gunsight replaced the ring-and-bead arrangement, armor plate was provided for the pilot, and armored glass was added to the wind screen. The Curtiss Electric cuffed propeller was replaced with a 10-foot one-inch Hamilton Standard propeller. The 339E was the only Buffalo variant to feature an internal gun camera. The small retractable naval-type tail wheel was replaced by a larger fixed tail wheel.

These changes brought the gross weight to 6500 pounds, almost a thousand pounds heavier than the standard F2A-2. The maximum speed was lowered to 330 mph and the rate of climb was lowered to only 2600 feet per minute. In addition, this increased weight raised the wing loading, increased the landing speed, and adversely affected the maneuverability. Another problem was that the Buffalo Mk. I did not use the same fuel line pressurization system as the F2A-2, and fuel starvation problems were often experienced above 18,000 feet.

The Wright Cyclone R-1820-G105 engine installed in the Buffalo Mk. I had been selected in part because there were sufficient numbers of this engine available at the time to meet the first British contract. However, when the second contract was issued, there were not enough new Cyclone engines available, and Brewster was forced to purchase used Cyclone engines from commercial airlines which had been using them to power their Douglas DC-3 airliners. These used engines were returned to Wright, which remanufactured them to -G105 standards.

The first three production Model 339Es were sent to Great Britain in April of 1941 for trials. The remaining Buffalos of the British order were shipped directly to the Far East to serve with units in Malaya, Singapore and Burma. The first Buffalos arrived in Singapore in the spring of 1941.

Five Commonwealth squadrons were formed around the Buffalo -- Nos. 67 and 243 Squadrons, RAF; Nos. 21 and 43 Squadrons of the RAAF; and No. 488 Squadron of the RNZAF. No. 67 Squadron was based in Burma and the other four were stationed at bases near Singapore. Each squadron was issued with 15 aircraft. A shortage of pilots prevented the formation of additional squadrons, and many Buffalos were placed in storage. Many of the pilots in the Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons were relatively new and inexperienced, and some 20 Buffalos were lost in training accidents during the autumn of 1941.

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