Orm -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (4/10/2009 3:10:04 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote:
ORIGINAL: Froonp quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm Just a note about the Brewster Buffalo. It is my imprsssion that the Buffalo got its bad reputation because it was less manuverable than the Zero. But one must remember that the Japanese Zero was one on the most agile planes of WWII. The Finnish made excellent use from the Buffalo. But they also made excellent use of some mediocre fighters too, such as the Morane MS.406 French Fighter, and the Fiat G.50 Italian Fighter. I wonder how they became so good riding such bad planes. Maybe their opponents were poor quality russian pilots, I don't know. The russians had the I-16 type 24 that was a superior plane compared to the French & Italian fighters. Anyone here with a clue as to how the Finns dominated the Russians so much ? Planes are like tanks. They are a balance of power, maneuverability, firepower and speed. To see how a plane stacks up just looking at them sitting on the ground is pretty easy. Big engine? Fast and powerful. Long thin wings? Very maneuverable. Big engine, short stubby wings? Fast but not maneuverable. That's the category of the Brewster Buffalo. Most successful American fighters fit that description. The P-47, F4F, F6F, F4U, F8F, P-36, Brewster Buffalo...etc... A few tried to be maneuver fighters instead of speed/power fighters. The P-39, P-40 and P-51 are the most notable of those. Interestingly the P-51 wasn't made for the USAAF but for the RAF whose combat planes fit that model much more closely than USAAF fighters did. Why the Finns did better is two fold. 1) They were better trained. The VVS pilots were in about the same state of training and readiness and the Soviet tank forces were. 2) They had better tactics. The Soviet pilots with little training were able to do only rudimentary combat formations the Finns on the other hand were well trained and very good in combat. Good Hunting. MR I am sure you are correct in general. But on the subject of the Brewster Buffalo I turned to Wikipedia to have a look if my memory was that bad. It turns out we are both right in some way. At least according to the ace "Pappy" Boyington. Cut from wikipedia: Both the F2A-1 and the F2A-2 variants of the Brewster were liked by early Navy and Marine pilots, including Pappy Boyington, who praised the good turning and maneuvering abilities of the aircraft."Pappy" Boyington observed: "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armor-plate, radios, and other [equipment], they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little [aircraft] could turn and roll in a phone booth."
|
|
|
|