The Buffalo had a high success rate due to the Finnish pilots vastly outclassing their Soviet enemies. In the Pacific, it was the opposite story with allied Buffaloes being massacred by the Japanese who had better aircraft and better trained pilots early in the war.
@@neganrex5693 WWII a was under way as it began on September 1, 1939, and the Winter War began on November 30 on the same year. At that stage, it had not drawn in all of Europe and much of the rest of the World. The Soviets had invade eastern Poland in September and split it with the Germans. Unlike the Germans, the Soviets gained a lot of criticism but no one declared war. The Brits and other countries sent arms to Finland in spite of already being at war with Germany.
It always is. Pilot indeed is far bigger factor than the machine. But Brewster was not a bad aircraft at all. Rugged, nimble, good gun platform etc. It worked well in Finnish conditions, and with serious jury rigging its performance got various boosts. It just didn't seem to work well in tropical conditions. Fun anecdote: in Malaya Brits had trouble with overheating related to oil - Finns solved that issue with jury rigging by installing the oil pump upside down.
If you ever want to win drinks at a bar, that Brewster Buffalo kill ratio is the way to go. I would have laughed at you in the face if you told me that.
Isn't that the general trend for the Eastern Front? The kill ratios for German equipment being inflated by a higher kill ratio against the Red Army, making up for a lower kill ratio in the West?
@@iansneddon2956 When the lend and lease brought Western equipment to the East, it did not change the poor results of the Soviet Union in the air war. In Finland, the learning curve was steep and the results were excellent.
@@zenonelealainen3750 Wiki: /Luettelo Lentolaivue 24:n ilmavoitoista ja sotatoimitappioista/ Tuosta laskea rahjustin MT:n voitot ja selvät alas-ammutut. Wikipedia: List of win/lost Fokker/Brewster/Messerschmitt in Finnish.
@@iansneddon2956 Yeah. TBH, Soviet losses shouldn't be counted. As seen in the current Ukraine/Russian war, Russians really suck at the whole war thing. Ukrainians are using the same equipment with far better stats. Russian tanks or fighters are PROBABLY way better then they seem, its just that Russian tactics really, REALLY suck and always have since FOREVER. Historically, I don't know of a single net, strategic victiory for Russia where it didn't just throw bodies at the enemy. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The P-51 was the aircraft most lost to friendly fire. It resembled the Bf-109 from a distance and at least 9 were lost to B-17 gunners mistakenly believing they were 109s. Lone P-51s who got separated from their squadrons had to approach the bombers very cautiously if they didn’t want to receive a lead salute.
The allied aircraft that shot down the most in Europe was hands down the P47...Why this video didnt do a simple google search on this IDK....I mean its not even close!
When my uncle was serving in the Pacific theater with VMF-214 (a.k.a. Major Greg “Pappy” Boyington’s squadron), he told me that the pilots flying the Corsair scared the Japanese pilots away, sometimes without firing a shot. They would shoot down and chase them as far as they could before needing to return home for fuel.
The Brewster Buffalo was never a good fighter. This list is whacked. The kill ratio does not reflect anything but the ability of the Finn's vs thee ability of the Russians.
@@paulhicks6667 The nips were scared to death of the gull wing devil, so they ran away. The Americans would give chase and start shooting them down!!!! WTF 🤬 can’t you read!??!
The Hawker Hurricane was responsible for more downed enemy planes than the Spitfire. But the Spitfire gets all the credit. Same thing with the B-17. The B-24 dropped more bombs but the 17 gets the credit.
In the case of the b17's vs the B24's maybe it was because the 17's have more defense armament were sent on the tougher missions and suffered heavy losses.
If only I had a nickel for every time some Hurricane fan boy lauded the outdated Hurricane and regurgitated some nonsense. The Hurricane was outdated by 1940 and had the worst kill ratio of the BoB. It's record only worsened after that.
@bobsakamanos4469 If I only had a nickel for people who don't have a doctorate in military history and are not experts in the air war over Europe ran their mouths. I've penned three books on the subject, befriended no less than nineteen pilots. My statement is one hundred percent historically correct. There is tons of records that prove it.
@@lw3918 LOL, a doctorate? When you say "There is tons of records.." you prove you are a charlatan and a fraud. Sorry son, you have no idea of military history, aerodyamics, engineering or military training/leadership/doctrine/strategy/tactics nor air combat.
The Bf-109 was also the original fighter plane of the Israeli Air Force, equipped with 109's built postwar in Czech factories not wiped out by the Allied bombing campaigns.
@@emmanuelpetit8320 Essentially a Bf109 with a different engine and prop...... ESSENTIALLY. It was absolute rubbish, but it's appearance was pivotal initially in repelling the Egyptian army from memory. Not because of it's effectiveness, but the effect it had on the moral of the Egyptian troops who believed that the Israelis had no aircraft..
The Bf 109 was in German production from 1936-45. The most produced fighter ever. It remained in service after the war in several air forces. The Czechs even built a version ofthe 109 for Israel.
Keep this in mind folks... 1/3 of the P-38s were used as PHOTOJOEs.. I.E. no guns. So there were not a lot of P-38s go to around. It served in ALL theaters. PTO, MTO, ETO, CBI, Aleutians, etc... everywhere! Served as a escort fighter, air superiority fighter, fighter/bomber, bomber (droop snoot), & photo recon! And that was from Dec. 1941 through the end of the war in Aug. 1945!
I befriended a WW II P-5(photo-recon P-38) Pilot who lived in my town and frequented a local coffee shop... He told me of incredibly long and boring twice-weekly overflights of the Aleutian chain of Islands that had been invaded by Japanese forces around the time of the Battle of Midway... Even though the Japanese accomplished nothing there(it was intended as a diversion) our military had to keep watch in case they made any moves.. John related to me the problems with operating these twin engined planes in a subarctic temperature... The cockpit was heated by coolant piped in from the outboard engines yet never really brought any usable relief to the pilot on these 8 to 10 hour flights. However the bigger problem facing these lone pilots was the ever-present fog banks that obscure even the USAAF bases where they flew from... John related a story of one instance where he had a frozen compass and wandered off course and realizing his plight simply flew about the cloud bank until all his fuel was exhausted.. He prepared to die in the frigid water below, bailed out, and proceeded to land in his chute immediately adjacent to an Army base... Took off his chute, grabbed a tray, and got in line for evening chow!!😂
Exceptional fighter after the compressibility problem was solved. Some pilots learned how to improve turning by gunning one engine and slowing the rpm's and feathering the prop of the other.
interesting fact I have dug up on those Finnish Buffalos and I quote . "A stripped-down, more manoeuvrable, and significantly lightened version of the American Brewster Buffalo was the FAF's main fighter until 1943. Results with this fighter were very good, even though the type was considered to be a failure in the US Navy and with British and Dutch Far East forces. In Finnish use, the Brewster had a victory rate of 32:1 - 459 kills to 15 losses." it looks like they Figured out a way to improve what many said was a failed fighter. the Finn also fielded Hawker Hurricanes and even Curtiss Hawk P75's that given to them by the Germany have captured them in Europe. it is also worth remembering they supported the AXIS powers. once Germany invaded Russia they were then given BF109 G series Aircraft and other Axis Fighters Fiat G.50 . in their continuation wars against the Russians following on from the winters wars of 1939/40 finally in 1944 Finland agreed a peace deal with the Russians on conditions that they would expel all German force out of Finland to avoid been invaded themselves. So it looks like those Finns are good pilots even been able to turn a bad plane into a good one.
Yes they had an odd collection of Fighters including all these below. I imagine the Russian one were captured during the Winter War 1939/40 also they used two types from Gloster . Polikarpov I-15 Gloster Gauntlet Gloster Gladiator Hawker Hurricane Messerschmitt Bf 109 Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 Fokker D.XXI Fiat G.50 Freccia Curtiss P-36 Hawk Brewster F2A Buffalo Caudron C.714 Petlyakov Pe-3 Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 Curtiss P-40 Warhawk VL Myrsky @@broccanmacronain457
Indeed Finns were able to jury rig and improve the Brewster to fit their needs. It was not a bad plane at all. It was nimble, rugged, steady gun platform. Finnish WWII pilots loved the plane and called it the Pearl of the Sky. And that's a huge compliment considering the variety of planes Finns flew in the WWII. To the contrary US Navy, Brits and Dutch hated the plane. But they flew in very different conditions with different versions. For example Brits in Malay complained the engine would easily overheat and spew oil. Finns solved that problem by installing the oil pump upside down. Jury rigging made Brewster into the workhorse it was in the Finnish service. It was outdated in 1941 but by 1943-44 it was hopelessly outdated and no jury rigging could change that. And what made all the difference was the pilots.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of the Soviet planes were biplanes or other obsolete aircraft. I am not knocking the Finnish pilots, the Buffalo was such a flying turd wagon it is amazing they ever shot down any aircraft. Of course they Buffaloes were probably modded enough to not really be Buffaloes anymore.
It was not the Buffalo F2A, but Brewster Model 239, denavalized version of the F2A-1 Buffalo, ordered by Finland in 1939 as a means of acquiring a modern fighter plane. Unlike the US Navy F2A-1, the plane was lighter, turned better and had better overall performance due to being stripped of arresting gear and all other equipment necessary for carrier landings, together with a more powerful Wright R-1820-G5 engine producing 10 hp more compared to the US Navy Buffalos. The planes themselves arrived too late to participate in the Winter War, but were used extensively in the Continuation War all the way to late 1944 when they were withdrawn from service. Finnish pilots regarded the plane as very maneuverable, easy to fly, and also not requiring extensive maintenance. LeLV 24 had a score of 26:1 using B-239 as they claimed 477 Soviet planes shot down for a loss of just 19 B-239s. The real kill rate in air combats was actually 32:1, if counted B-239s downed by AAA, it goes down to 26:1.
@@thejohnbeckmany US pilots preferred the P-47 and the Spitfire to the P51 but didn’t have the range to go Berlin and back. The P-47 was a flying tank the engineering must have been unbelievable.
@@markcook4043Which explains why the Thunderbolt aka "Jug" was more successful in the ground attack role. The P-47 could absorb damage that would destroy any other fighter and still bring it's pilot home.
The F2 Brewster Buffalo was selected as #1 because it shot down a bunch of Russian aircraft. Yet, it was outclassed by every other aircraft from the Axis air forces like the Japanese Zero. Perhaps the Fins could have taught the other Allied pilots how to fly it.
Brewster Buffalo was certainly not "outclassed by every other aircraft from the Axis". It was not even outclassed by every other aircraft from the Allies either. Surely outclassed by top of the line machines such as Zero, Spitfire, BF-109 or Mustang, as it was also outclassed by top of the line Soviet fighters. But it was not outclassed by everything and not in every circumstance. Many of those 477 air victories by Brewsters were against Soviet bombers just as many BF-109 victories were, and many Spitfire victories etc. In fact most of BF-109 or Spitfire victories were not not against best fighters but bombers and other aircraft. Yet the 477 victories by Brewster does include lot of fighters such as Soviet Hawker Hurricanes (lend lease) and other high performance fighters. Your insinuation that Brewesters only shot down bad aircraft is without any merit. Additionally that could be said of all aircraft in the list. Only a minority of aircraft they shot down were enemy top of the line fighters. By far most of their kills were bombers or other aircraft not so good at dogfight. After you have really thought about the numbers and all, then it all comes down to pilot skill. Just as the video correctly states.
@@jariveturi3004 : When I said every other Axis fighter, I qualified it by saying "like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero." Not every bi/tri plane flying then. However, the BF-109 and the FW-190 would outclass the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in speed and certain maneuverability aspects. I also said that perhaps the Finish air force pilots could have taught the other Allied pilots how to fly it. Perhaps "The Buzz" should make a separate list of kills for fighter on fighter.
@@jasonrhodes9726 The modifications done to Finnish Buffalos weren't very excessive. Decent improvements, but nothing spectacular. Also their claimed kill list happens to be available in wikipedia: fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Lentolaivue_24:n_ilmavoitoista_ja_sotatoimitappioista For BW there are some bombers at the start, but after that it's a long list of different fighters. At first slightly worse types, then equal or slightly better and at the end undoubtedly superior La-5s.
It's all about the pilot. Rank, and what kind of aircraft you are in matters not, it's all about the pilot and their connection to their machine. Look at the red baron
Clearly the ratios shown here for the Spitfire and Me109 are not head to head ratios, but rather on their effectiveness against other, lesser planes on each side.
Especially the Buffalo, given that 4 went up at Midway and 0 landed with 0 kills recorded. The only fighters to score kills at Midway were the Zeros and Wildcats. Honestly insulted that neither of those planes were on. Especially the early dominance of the Zero
A really important factor to consider is these planes when in a target rich environment and the German and Finn pilots had that also. Planes like the Brewster Buffalo and Gloster Gladiator were remarkably well suited for Finland's harsh environment and combined with the skill of the Finnish pilots and the target rich environment the Russian's were happily providing them. They would have scored highly. The Germans also had highly skilled pilot force and top notch airplanes and again a massively target rich environment were practically almost every plane in the sky was your enemy and in that situation you can find enemies easier than they can find you.
Gloster Gladiator in general didn't play any significant role in Finland. The most important fighter in Finland during the Winter War 1939-40 was the Fokker D.XXI. In the early Continuation War 1941-44 the most important fighter was the Brewster B-239. Also the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, Curtiss Hawk 75-A and Fiat G.50. From 1943 onwards the main fighter was the Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2/6.
@@timoterava7108 actually the Fokker DXXi was really to few in number to be significant in it's own right. Finland in WW2 is somewhat like Ukraine now where they possess small numbers of a large variety of weapons and are having to learn them all individually. Finland in WW2 was probably the most elite experienced fighting force in WW2 simply because of the wide variety of weapons they gladly accepted and used
@@paulsnell534 I agree, that there were way too few Finnish fighters - especially in the Winter War - and that the Fokker D.XXI was already outdated then. What I meant with it being significant was, that it was still the best Finnish fighter for the most part of the Winter War and it achieved almost 3/4 of the total Finnish air victories (218). The Gloster Gladiator was the runner-up with less than 1/4 of the total amount.
It's more like a healthy mix of skilled pilot, capable ground crew, reliable machinery, superior tactics, better training, competent leadership and an enemy who's exactly the opposite of all the former.
Disappointing, but not unusual, is the lack of mention of the Wildcat as produced by General Motors / Eastern. As remembered by the highly respected aviation author Barrett Tillman, the FM-2 had a kill ratio of 32:1. Read his article from Flight Journal in February of 2014 "The Wilder Wildcat".
The Wildcat was underestimated and underrated. Slower than the Zero and didn't turn as fast in the hands of experienced pilots they dominated against the Zero time and time again.
@@timsparks1858 Let me guess: You looked at results of large scale battles from Wikipedia, which include dozens if not hundreds of bombers and cause of losses aren't specified. I have seen many people do this, because there aren't proper sources available in internet, but what makes them think it's a sufficient comparison at all? When every recorded small scale fighter to fighter engagement have been compared from sources of both sides, Zeros have indeed been on the positive against F4F-3 and 4. Later on Wildcats got better, but even in first engagement with few F6Fs included, they did pretty much evenly. The thing to note is that the losses on both sides were low considering how many fighters took part in them and the ratios vary a lot, most likely thanks to pilots included in them and the overall tactical position. In 1943 when F6F quickly replaced F4F, it become apparent the IJN was behind in both performance and tactics, though there isn't anything absolutely catastrophic on air until 1944. That's when IJN losing 50-95% of their fighters on air become the norm.
Luftwaffe pilots were allowed to count aircraft they strafed on the ground as part of their tally. Given that approximately 2,800 Soviet planes were shot up on the ground in the first 48 hours of Operation Barbarossa, kills racked up very quickly, but many of them were not in air-to-air combat. Anyone wanting a fantastic book on the Luftwaffe on the Ostfront should read Mike Spick's "Aces of the Third Reich." Thanks for the video.
The person narrating these videos seems to have some noticeable problems with pronunciation, often with the same word in the same paragraph. Clearly reading off a page, with no prior read-thru with someone familiar with the material, production process & values clearly need a bit of polish.
@@grantgarrod2232 Yeah, when I come across videos like this, I know its just another click-baity AI produced channel. UA-cam is full of them these days.
Its more about how well trained the pilots were, the planes quality comes second. Certain planes were certainly better than others, but the pilots definitely made them lethal.
The P40 was a very good turning plane at higher speeds. Once the tactics were worked out, it did very well. It wasn't suitable for the western European front due to a not great top speed and poor high altitude performance (dogfighting there centered around where the bombers flew). In the Pacific it was overshadowed by the US carrier based planes. Its best showing was in areas of the war like Mainland Asia, North Africa, and the Mediterranean that get less fanfare.
Philliben You are forgetting the P40 was the third most produced US fighter with 14,000 made right behind the P51 and the P47 and was in service at the start of WWII and served in all theaters and by all allied nations till the end of the war. numbers and time in service and it was a damn good plane maybe not the best but good enough that it got the job done when flown to its strengths. The P40 outperformed the Hurrycane as proven in the African campaign realizing also the Hurricane never got the later 60 series 2 stage merlin it soldiered on with its single stage supercharged engine just as the P40 did, both planes being under appreciated in the war..They both were the sluggers that slugged it out during the whole war !!!
I agree. It is well known that the P-40 was the Allied fighter that suffered the most losses, in absolute numbers, in all theaters of operations. A kill/loss ratio of 2:1 would surprise me, because they shot down many bombers, but were defeated by ME-109s and Zeros in most fighter-on-fighter encounters, so I think the 18:1 ratio is unrealistic.
Adversaries play a great role here: if you were facing early Russian you'd have the highest tally. Similarly mid to late Japanese would increase your numbers. The kill numbers of German aces moving from Eastern to Western theaters of war may illustrate this case better.
Being a pilot in any air force requires skill and grit and the BF 109 was an excellent plane but I do wonder how many of those kills were from obsolete Polish biplanes and Soviet aircraft caught on the ground.
This also depends on the theatre in question..and in which time period. The Battle of Britain pitched both pilots of quality and experience ( probably the German pilots had more experience at that time ) and comparable aircraft together. Likewise in the Pacific at Medway..the aircraft and pilots were reasonably comparable. Towards the end of the war, the Germans and Japanese were desperately short of pilots with any experience at all.
@@edwardadams9358 well yes, the broken purple code. But the otherwise excellent japanese Pilots suffered by having almost unarmored planes and no self-sealing tanks, the Zero was an excellent plane but a lucky stray shot doomed it. Also the JAF had an abysmal or non-existent pilot recovery service.
The kill ratio is an interesting metric for gauging success however, when looking at the victories of these aircraft, one needs to also look at the apposing aircraft as as well as the year in which most of the usage occurred. For example, how well would the Buffalo have done against a bf-109 or FW-190.
It’s similar to the corsairs situation, the only reason why the planes kill ratio is so low is because it can really late in the war, really only entering widespread use in the navy in really late 1944, were it then became a menace
exactly. There are many factors behind the success of any type or variant. If two types flew in the same battle with equal numbers, support, training system, doctrine etc, then just maybe the Kill Ratio would be meaningful.
Interesting. Have to admit, I did not see the Brewster Buffalo as number one coming. It’s a good example of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” While it is statistically true the Finnish Buffalo pilots wracked up impressive kill rates in an air war of attrition with the Soviets, it certainly doesn’t tell the story of a superior fighter plane.
"...Although superior to the Grumman F3F biplane it replaced, and the early F4Fs, the Buffalo was largely obsolete when the United States entered the war, being unstable and overweight, especially when compared to the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero....", "...During the Continuation War of 1941-1944, the B-239s (de-navalized F2A-1s) operated by the Finnish Air Force proved capable of engaging and destroying most types of Soviet fighter aircraft operating against Finland at that time, and claimed in the first phase of that conflict 32 Soviet aircraft shot down for every B-239 lost, producing 36 Buffalo "aces". ..."
This video is an example of taking one stat and drawing (or implying) something a far more important conclusion. The kill-to-loss ratio of early-war planes is meaningless when talking about the 'best' (which is subjective and arbitrary anyway) fighter/pursuit aircraft of the war. Anyone who would walk away from this video thinking that the Buffalo and P-40 were some of the most outstanding fighters of war would be gravely wrong. With that said, I think that almost anyone would agree that an inferior aircraft in the hands of a skilled pilot could be very lethal, while an outstanding aircraft in the hands of an inferior pilot will usually be ineffective.
Good video but very poor editing at the end. Pasted the advert for 6 Fighter jets with highest kill-to-loss ratio on top of the display for the Brewster Buffalo .... and another over h top of the Hellcat. Basic Error only needed a few seconds to be able to pause and read. Shows the total lack of checking the video before putting out there :(
I have a feeling that the Bf-109 and Buffalo had such a high number of kills only because of the large number of lackluster Soviet aircraft they shot down.
considering would the Soviet air force was flying at that time as front line fighters I would not consider the Buffalo as top rated Fighter . Polikarpov I-153 was a Bi Planeeeps fighter that's could not even hit 200 mph . and the other Polikarpov I-16 just about made 288 mph. as for the Germans yes it was a Turkey shoot at the start again facing these same dated fighters and newer planes like the Mig 1 and other more modern designs. but it did not stay that way the Soviets went on to build some great Planes and the Luftwaffe was on the back foot from 1943 . WW2 Top scoring ACE Eric Hartmann all had kills against Western Allied piloted aircraft though many still will question the total of 355 kills mostly on the Eastern front . the Me 109 should be top because it was in Combat in the Spanish Civil war then on all Fronts or the German military campaign until the very last hrs of WW2. What I find odd is were is the FW 190 the so called Butcher Bird of the Me 262 . but after doing some digging around they are correct here just through its kills V losses the Finnish Buffalos have the best ratio of WW2 and they used that Fighter until 1944. things that go against those other Luftwaffe aircraft is they suffer even higher losses once the USAAF changed tactics from close Bomber Escorts to free range Fighter sweeps and the dire quality of pilot training. both have good kill ratios once they were in the air . but more were shot down trying to take off or just destroyed on the ground. also most of the late war Luftwaffe records were lost. this is not after all just about the highest kill ratio all the other aircraft listed were lost in high numbers no surprise that no soviet aircraft even make the list even though they probably shot more Luftwaffe aircraft down than any other nation. but in turn suffered massive losses.
Well that completely floored me! Arguably the worst fighter of WWII is top of the list. This is largely down to the Finns as nobody else had much success with it.
Although the various models of the Me/Bf109 were very successful, it is noticeable that they (apparently) shot down more RAF planes in the Battle of Britain than were ever in service at the time. It is interesting that the formidable FW190 does not appear on this list, possibly due to its later entry into combat. It was certainly good enough to expedite the production of improved Spitfires.
To be honest I question all these figures. Some of them are so ridiculous - a six year long war would have ground to a halt in the first few months such are the heavy losses, that then have to be replaced, not just machines but pilots. I think you judge the effectiveness of any of these planes by who actually won the war; and the crucial points within that war when it was won. On that basis you have to say the Hawker Hurricane was the best fighter plane. Without the Hurricane in The Battle of Britain the RAF would not have won.
All sides over claimed. Some over claims were accidental, others not so much. From memory, after the Battle of Britain the German changed the way they counted, and it required another pilot to verify (again from memory)
From what I gathered from books & such the A model 190's didn't fare too well against daylight bombers since their engines lost a lot of power at altitude. 109's & later model D-190's had superchargers & could at least keep mustangs occupied...
@@levonbryan5577 The Fw190's fared very well against the bombers, It was the escorting fighters that they didn't fair well against ;-) And to be a bit more accurate, it was until Jimmy Doolittle changed the tactics that pretty much the entire Luftwaffe lost the ability to be effective against the bombers (or to be nowhere near as effective)
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was chosen as #1 of my WW2 fighter planes of the pacific theater because it was used very successfully in the pacific and europe operations and it shot down lots of japanese aircraft.
It really was not that successful in Europe. Too cold at high altitudes, too ergonomically bad to switch form cruising to combat quickly, until later models poor roll rate, wasn't significantly faster than German types, and easy to spot. Excellent in the Pacific where it flew at medium altitudes and was much faster than the zero but really barely on par with the 109 and 190. In the end the P-51 had better range, more advantages over German fighters, and cost 1/2 as much as a Lightning. The Lightning is a really beautiful plane though 😀
@@patwilson2546 the P-38 was faster (at all altitudes), faster in a climb, had a much higher ceiling and was more maneuverable at speed than either the Fw 190 or the Bf 109 and had an excellent roll rate with the addition hydraulically boosted ailerons in most produced version, the P-38L. Its Achilles heel was its dive speed was restricted by compressibility and the Germans knew this. Compressibility was never rectified in the ETO however it was in the PTO with the addition of dive brakes. The Jap planes sucked in a dive so it really didn’t matter.
Used as a light, almost medium bomber it lost almost 100mph in speed, so more were shot down than other fughters, because it was the fastest fighter for 2 years, it was converted as unarmed photo recon (90% of al European photos were taken by it) plane and again lost more planes in a non fighter roll due mostly to ground fire. THE Figures for the 38 are always screwed up. DOOLITTLE called it "the Sweetest plane I've ever flown" Lindbergh flew it in combat in the Pacific , that makes it a hard plane to be number 2 to anyother.
Speaking off the cuff: I suspect because the FW190 entered the war later, and was thrown against more and better aircraft as the experienced German pilots were gradually expended, it didn't get the numbers commensurate with its objective merit.
An error at 2:45 (February 1942, soon after Pearl Harbour, could have nothing to do with either the Guadalcanal campaign or Corsair's career, both coming later). Then, at 3:18, Corsair discussed but a Hellcat shown (landing onboard).
The absence of the FW-190A is pretty absurd. And the Oscar should be ahead of the A6M. It was preferred to all other Army types except the Ki-100. A Japanese ace said "We owe our survival to the Ki-43." 16 P-38s tried for 30 minutes to down one, and all had to turn back from lack of ammo and fuel... All the Oscar did was continuous circles at reduced power. This happened numerous times with a variety of Japanese types, but usually not the A6M, as Navy pilots were indoctrinated to use speed, not turns.
@@wrathofatlantis2316Kill to loss ratio is a pretty random and not particularly useful measure - as the Brewster Buffalo's position at the top of this table demonstrates. It's as much a measure of the opposition the plane faced as anything. The 109 was the Luftwaffe's main front line fighter early in the war when it was winning. In Poland, and in the USSR at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa it came up against obsolete opponents and there were plenty of kills to be had. By the time 190s started to arrive the quality of oppsition it faced was higher that what the 109 had been up against in some of those early campaigns. Similarly, the Grumman Hellcat scored a lot of victories against inexperienced Japanese pilots in obsolete aircraft in the later stages of the Pacific campaign. If you're making a list of the best fighters of WW2 then the 190 certainly belongs there. And I'm personally a bit of a fan of the Hawker Tempest. Going by the metric they're using though I guess their list is accurate.
@@johnwilkin1277 I do not count kill ratios as reliable at all. I almost never quote them. A detailed study of individual group encounters, where no other types could be present, between the F4U-1 and the A6M (mostly A6M2, A6M3 and fewer A6M5s) for the entire first year of the Corsair's introduction, found the actual loss ratio, in a fairly large number of specific battles where only these two types were there, to be no better than 1:1, not anywhere near the claimed 11:1... Sure it got better later, but not by a factor of over 10. (F4U vs A6M, Osprey, last chapter) In the same vein, there is no way Hartmann had 352 kills, absolutely none, and while 200 would seem plausible, estimates looking at the actual individual losses can go as low as 80-100... Even in the cases claimed verified by camera, the quality is so poor that a kill smoking from ten other guys will pass in front and make it as yours, all the other ten kills being "verified" by camera. Allied overclaiming was less severe than Axis (maybe 3 vs 5 times, especially regarding the Japanese), simply because the Allies usually outnumbered everyone, and so had many fewer targets to overclaim on, but that is about as far as it goes.
O P-40 foi um cavalo de batalha nos primeiros anos da guerra. Operando de forma confiável em condições adversas, como o Norte da África, e segundo relatório, teve um desempenho melhor que o Furacão. Da Tunísia contra os alemães à China contra os japoneses, manteve-se firme durante anos críticos da guerra até que aeronaves melhores estivessem disponíveis. [desculpe pelo Google Tradutor, felicidades] The P-40 was a work horse for the earlier years of the war. Operating reliably in harsh conditions, like North Africa, and by report performed better than the Hurricane. From Tunisia against the Germans to China against the Japanese, it held its own through critical years of the war until better aircraft were available.
Your stats on the P40 and the Buffalo are total BS. Overall, in the context of WW2 fighter success, these two would come in much much lower, if not last
Next time i play a flight sim, i'm gonna play the brewster buffalo. The thing has a higher kill/loss ratio than even jet fighters. The most slept on fighter in history!!!!!
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
@@broccanmacronain457 I get it though, the Finns had success with everything though, they used the Stug III to great effect and were masterful with their artillery so it makes sense...we all think of the Buffalo and Midway, or the Phillipines, just like most of us would never think of the P-40 as that successful but, it was...and hate to quote "Maverick" but it's true, "it's not the plane, it's the pilot..." History has proven that time and again...look at what the Israeli's have done in the Middle East...personally, I think they are the best...even better than the U.S. a dogfight between the two would truly be something to see...wouldn't want to have to bet on a winner...
Kill/loss ratio is interesting but some may other factors are overlooked. When the aircraft entered the war and strength of enemy aircraft and pilots at that time, type of aircraft, i.e. bombers, fighters, transports typically engaged, etc.
I about did a spit-take when the Brewster Buffalo emerged as #1, when I was anticipating a more capable and powerful fighter, i.e. Focke-Wulf 190 or Dornier Arrow. But in the context that the Finns had talented pilots and lots of jerry-rigging and improvisation improved on what many other nations saw as a flawed plane, it makes sense. And again, we're talking about kill-to-loss ratios, in aerial combat that probably saw lots of other planes in conflict (the BF-109 faced mostly Polish biplanes in the early phase of the war.) Just one technical comment on the video: Was the voice auto-generated? There's some really odd inflections and mispronunciations scattered throughout the narration, to the point of being distracting. I'm sure this was well-researched, but please find a person versed in aircraft names, etc. so you have a cleaner and more comprehensible presentation. That's my only criticism. Thanks!
What biplane in Polish Air Forces ?, Poles managed to shot down 126 German planes in September 1939, despite having only 300-400 planes in their Air Force. While Germans started with 1300 planes. Just for historical accuracy.....none of Polish first line planes were biplanes
Bottom line about german ace's, all they had to do was claim an aerial victory, where as nearly all other air forces in WWII, and by the way WWI, required a witness to the victory, either on the ground or in the air, to substantiate the victory. So therefore if every airforce played by the same rules, the statistics would be totally different.
Unrealistic list. The two major players that lost WW2 had to do with shortage of materials, fuel and , most important at the latter stages of the war, well trained pilots. This made them easy prey for seasoned Allied fighter pilots. It would be better to make a comparison year by year.
I really would be interested in seeing the studies and or the stats that would put the most ungodly, lackluster and ugly aircraft as the top kill/loss ratio….the Brewster F2A Buffalo? I think that ratio is more like 1.3/1 vs. Japan
Also that in the Pacific theatre Buffalos were fighting in defence early in the war. Against Japanese, who had the initiative, better planes and much better trained pilots at that point. Especially Imperial Navy pilots, who were creme de la creme at that point.
FA2 used in Pacific was rather different beast than the B.239 used by Finns, If Finns had used F2A the kill ratio would also have been affected rather much.
As to B.239 being ugly, I beg to differ. "Sky's Pearl", as was its one nickname in Finland, is a beautiful plane. As to lackluster, just ask the pilots of the 477 Russian planes downed by Finns how lackluster it was... ;)
@@jannelonnqvist2947 we’ll beauty is in the eye of the beholder, personally it looks “chunky lissious” but to each it’s own. Regarding it’s record vs. Russians well the top German aces in WW II racked up record kills in the 100’s “Hartmann had 352, Bär 220, Rall 275, Rudorffer 224 and 95% of all those kills were in Easter front vs. Russian aircraft” so if everyone was playing by the same rules and every other country max kill’s was below 60 and the Germans had such high number of kills only leads to the conclusion that the Russian were using Quantity vs. Quality overwhelm with numbers and who cares with the losses because they had vast amounts of reserve’s and the Germans and their allies did not, which would explain the Finn’s high kills on the Buffalo. Now in equal terms like in the Pacific the Buffalo was at best 1/1 kill ratio and that is being very generous.
@@Bulico123 Wouldn't describe Pacific as equal with terms like "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". Japanese might've had almost an upper hand during the very early part of the conflict but by mid to late 1942 the US planes started to dominate. And with the loss of more experienced aircrews the Japanese effectiveness decreased a lot.
In the Pacific, where the Buffalo first saw combat with U.S. forces, it was quickly found lacking against more nimble and better-performing Japanese aircraft. Its slower speed and poor climb rate were significant handicaps in air combat. The Finns' use of the Buffalo against the Soviets does stand out as an anomaly, where the aircraft achieved a commendable kill-to-loss ratio due to several factors including the tactical acumen of Finnish pilots, the specific operational environment, and perhaps lesser-quality opposition at certain times.
What happenened to the P 47 and hawker Tempest and Fw 190 The kill ratio of german pilots on the Eastern front is suspect as all the pilot had to do was open fire on russian aircraft and he was able to claim a kill regardless of whether aircraft crashed or not hence the extraordinary high scores claimed How anyone could list the flying barrel Buffalo as number one is beyond me they were outclassed by practically everything else in the sky A Gloster Gladiator would be a threat to them
annnd there it is. The very old and tired illegitimate argument of "it was a against Russian aircraft so it doesn't count" shtick. I specifically went down into these comments to amuse myself with the ridiculous statements that one always gets on WW2 youtube videos and in particular that one. Apparently the only kills that count in aerial combat are American ones or allied ones. Everyone elses are just bs. God it never changes does it. Americans are mega chad aces with invunerable, invincible aircraft and the axis are just chumps with toy aircraft who made up all their claims. Yep, never disappoints.
The Finnish Air Force actually had 30 MKII Gloster Gladiators in WWII. By 1941 they were considered obsolete and used only in reconnaissance. Before that two Finnish pilots had become aces with Gladiator.
At the eastern front the soviets used enormous numbers of IL-2 ground attack planes . These were quite feared by german infantry, but without proper fighter escort the slow IL 2 was an easy prey for german fighters like BF109 or FW190, in contrast to P47 and Hawker Tempest. I think this explains the high kill rate of german aces in the east.
@@hansulrichboning8551 I wouldn't call IL-2 as easy prey! Certainly easier than top of the line FIGHTER aircraft but still a far cry from easy prey methinks
I think your algorithm for calculating these ratios might be incorrect. It seems like your ratio is based on the total amount of air craft built by the amount lost in combat which is incorrect. The P40 for instance had over 10,000 built but saw so little action because they were inferior to the P51, P38 and P47.
anyone else notice that the spitfire was number of pilots lost and not number of planes lost like the others. how many spitfires were lost in combat but the pilot simply parachuted safely over Britain to fight again?
I have serious doubts about the Spitfire claims. Fighting the Germans, their top ace had only around 40 victories vs the Germans having several aces with over 100 kills against the British over England
Bf-109s Had a rather short operational time (window) over Britain in contrast to the British fighters who could be in the air for a much longer time. And when the 109 was severely damaged it did not make it back to its base in France, but was lost.
Corsairs, pronounced “course-airz”, were not operated much from US carriers but instead from island airfields. The Brits figured out how to land them on carriers.
It is official! The Buffalo was the best aircraft of WWII. This fact has been kept top secret until now when aircraft equivalent or slightly superior to the Buffalo have finally been produced!
Killing a transport is still a kill. What the kills consist of is a real factor here. You'd expect night fighters to have the best ratios, attacking totally by surpise in every case...
Just gon correct here by adding in inflation of claims and such 8: P51 4:1 7: P38: 4,2:1 6: P40: 5,7:1 5: bf109 6:1 (controversial. But the fascists often did this. Allied did as well but the fascists went to 11 with inflating) 4: Spitfire: 6,4:1 3: F2A/B239 Buffalo: 7:1 2: F4U: 7,3:1 1: F6F: 9,7:1 Inflation taking into account, yer welcome
That still includes planes shot on ground? Specially F6F and F4U racked hundreds of Japanese aircraft on airfields and due to lack of air kills the pilots counted those all the same. I haven't heard if Americans did the same in late war Germany or if Germans did it during Barbarossa. Buffalo and Spitfire might not have any of such.
@@Teh0X affirmative. it does. and everyone did so to bump up their numbers. so if someone claims 100 planes. you have to remove 2/3rds of their counts. and 4/5ths for the germans.
@@人民领袖-s9z mostly independent and easily biased research. In my case, taking the info given and applying mental and physical knowledge to make a more accurate picture. Sadly concrete evidence is next to none other than "trust me"
The buffalo and me-109 need asterisks because they scored most of their kills against the soviets. That amounted to shooting fish in a barrel. I am surprised about the Warhawk though. Their success must have been largely due to being primarily in the early war, because they weren’t especially good planes.
My grandfather served in the 15/jg52 Croatian unit flying the me109. There were 30-40 of them and with other parts of his unit 1/jg52, 2/jg52, 3/jg52, 13/jg52 there were around 150 of them I believe... They shot down over 11000 planes...
The Buffalo had a high success rate due to the Finnish pilots vastly outclassing their Soviet enemies.
In the Pacific, it was the opposite story with allied Buffaloes being massacred by the Japanese who had better aircraft and better trained pilots early in the war.
The Finns also stripped their Buffaloes down to the metal, just like the Japs did with their Zeroes and Oscars.
It wasn’t just the pilots though. The Buffalo matched up well against early Soviet planes as well.
When the Finns and the USSR was having their little war was right before WW 2 so I wouldn't think those kills count.
@@neganrex5693 WWII a was under way as it began on September 1, 1939, and the Winter War began on November 30 on the same year. At that stage, it had not drawn in all of Europe and much of the rest of the World. The Soviets had invade eastern Poland in September and split it with the Germans. Unlike the Germans, the Soviets gained a lot of criticism but no one declared war. The Brits and other countries sent arms to Finland in spite of already being at war with Germany.
@@lowellwhite1603Yeah, winter war was part of WW2. Odd how some people don't check timeline before commenting.
Any victory scored by a Brewster Buffalo was due to the pilot's skill, not the aircraft!
That's because Russians are so stupid. (I have more than twenty Russian friends, so I know they are stupid.)
Pilot skill and opposition both were important factors.
@@dagmortennikolaysen776 Right!!
It always is. Pilot indeed is far bigger factor than the machine.
But Brewster was not a bad aircraft at all. Rugged, nimble, good gun platform etc. It worked well in Finnish conditions, and with serious jury rigging its performance got various boosts.
It just didn't seem to work well in tropical conditions. Fun anecdote: in Malaya Brits had trouble with overheating related to oil - Finns solved that issue with jury rigging by installing the oil pump upside down.
a lot of battles won was due to the skills not the purported legend/hype status of a plane
If you ever want to win drinks at a bar, that Brewster Buffalo kill ratio is the way to go. I would have laughed at you in the face if you told me that.
In Finland, Buffalo kill ratio was 33:1 and BF-109 42:1
Isn't that the general trend for the Eastern Front? The kill ratios for German equipment being inflated by a higher kill ratio against the Red Army, making up for a lower kill ratio in the West?
@@iansneddon2956 When the lend and lease brought Western equipment to the East, it did not change the poor results of the Soviet Union in the air war. In Finland, the learning curve was steep and the results were excellent.
My understanding is that it was 25:1 with the 109, 32:1 with the Brewster and 33:1 with the Fiat. Semmoiset terveiset!
@@zenonelealainen3750 Wiki: /Luettelo Lentolaivue 24:n ilmavoitoista ja sotatoimitappioista/ Tuosta laskea rahjustin MT:n voitot ja selvät alas-ammutut. Wikipedia: List of win/lost Fokker/Brewster/Messerschmitt in Finnish.
@@iansneddon2956 Yeah. TBH, Soviet losses shouldn't be counted. As seen in the current Ukraine/Russian war, Russians really suck at the whole war thing. Ukrainians are using the same equipment with far better stats. Russian tanks or fighters are PROBABLY way better then they seem, its just that Russian tactics really, REALLY suck and always have since FOREVER. Historically, I don't know of a single net, strategic victiory for Russia where it didn't just throw bodies at the enemy. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The P-51 was the aircraft most lost to friendly fire. It resembled the Bf-109 from a distance and at least 9 were lost to B-17 gunners mistakenly believing they were 109s. Lone P-51s who got separated from their squadrons had to approach the bombers very cautiously if they didn’t want to receive a lead salute.
lead salute lol
The allied aircraft that shot down the most in Europe was hands down the P47...Why this video didnt do a simple google search on this IDK....I mean its not even close!
@@wirelessone2986 How many P-47s were lost in combat?
@@Inquisitor6321 they destroyed over 7000 planes most kills of any allied fighter in all the wars
@@Inquisitor6321 The P47 did the hard work of cleaning out the Axis aces for the P51 to do clean up with alot of green pilots
When my uncle was serving in the Pacific theater with VMF-214 (a.k.a. Major Greg “Pappy” Boyington’s squadron), he told me that the pilots flying the Corsair scared the Japanese pilots away, sometimes without firing a shot. They would shoot down and chase them as far as they could before needing to return home for fuel.
The Brewster Buffalo was never a good fighter. This list is whacked. The kill ratio does not reflect anything but the ability of the Finn's vs thee ability of the Russians.
@BuddWolf ~ Stop lying
@@paulhicks6667 that’s not what I said at all! Read my post and then I may consider your apology…..poser🖕🏻
@@paulhicks6667 The nips were scared to death of the gull wing devil, so they ran away. The Americans would give chase and start shooting them down!!!! WTF 🤬 can’t you read!??!
@@LJS01 lying about what? Get out of mommy and daddy’s basement and get a job. Bum
The Hawker Hurricane was responsible for more downed enemy planes than the Spitfire. But the Spitfire gets all the credit. Same thing with the B-17. The B-24 dropped more bombs but the 17 gets the credit.
In the case of the b17's vs the B24's maybe it was because the 17's have more defense armament were sent on the tougher missions and suffered heavy losses.
@@jameshannagan4256 Not at all.
If only I had a nickel for every time some Hurricane fan boy lauded the outdated Hurricane and regurgitated some nonsense. The Hurricane was outdated by 1940 and had the worst kill ratio of the BoB. It's record only worsened after that.
@bobsakamanos4469 If I only had a nickel for people who don't have a doctorate in military history and are not experts in the air war over Europe ran their mouths. I've penned three books on the subject, befriended no less than nineteen pilots. My statement is one hundred percent historically correct. There is tons of records that prove it.
@@lw3918 LOL, a doctorate? When you say "There is tons of records.." you prove you are a charlatan and a fraud. Sorry son, you have no idea of military history, aerodyamics, engineering or military training/leadership/doctrine/strategy/tactics nor air combat.
The Bf-109 was also the original fighter plane of the Israeli Air Force, equipped with 109's built postwar in Czech factories not wiped out by the Allied bombing campaigns.
Ava S199 is not a Me 109 (motor and others). It's an "ironer" that israélian hated ! They have it a very few time
@@emmanuelpetit8320 Essentially a Bf109 with a different engine and prop...... ESSENTIALLY.
It was absolute rubbish, but it's appearance was pivotal initially in repelling the Egyptian army from memory.
Not because of it's effectiveness, but the effect it had on the moral of the Egyptian troops who believed that the Israelis had no aircraft..
Crazy the irony that it went from being a Nazi plane to a plane defending the Jewish state Israel lol
Time in service is a massive factor here !
The Bf 109 was in German production from 1936-45. The most produced fighter ever. It remained in service after the war in several air forces. The Czechs even built a version ofthe 109 for Israel.
And the Fighter with the most Kills in air combat history
Its the most Successfull Fighter in history.
@@jpmtlhead39 I think one of the pictures of the Bf-109 is a Spanish HA-1112 actually.
Keep this in mind folks... 1/3 of the P-38s were used as PHOTOJOEs.. I.E. no guns. So there were not a lot of P-38s go to around. It served in ALL theaters. PTO, MTO, ETO, CBI, Aleutians, etc... everywhere! Served as a escort fighter, air superiority fighter, fighter/bomber, bomber (droop snoot), & photo recon! And that was from Dec. 1941 through the end of the war in Aug. 1945!
My favorite WW2 aircraft.
I befriended a WW II P-5(photo-recon P-38) Pilot who lived in my town and frequented a local coffee shop... He told me of incredibly long and boring twice-weekly overflights of the Aleutian chain of Islands that had been invaded by Japanese forces around the time of the Battle of Midway... Even though the Japanese accomplished nothing there(it was intended as a diversion) our military had to keep watch in case they made any moves.. John related to me the problems with operating these twin engined planes in a subarctic temperature... The cockpit was heated by coolant piped in from the outboard engines yet never really brought any usable relief to the pilot on these 8 to 10 hour flights.
However the bigger problem facing these lone pilots was the ever-present fog banks that obscure even the USAAF bases where they flew from... John related a story of one instance where he had a frozen compass and wandered off course and realizing his plight simply flew about the cloud bank until all his fuel was exhausted.. He prepared to die in the frigid water below, bailed out, and proceeded to land in his chute immediately adjacent to an Army base... Took off his chute, grabbed a tray, and got in line for evening chow!!😂
Exceptional fighter after the compressibility problem was solved. Some pilots learned how to improve turning by gunning one engine and slowing the rpm's
and feathering the prop of the other.
They also didn't get the latest improvements available for the engines or the paddle props that would have been decisive
what amazes me is how Richard Bong got so many kills in it when you would think the Mustang and Corsair would produce the most prolific aces,
interesting fact I have dug up on those Finnish Buffalos and I quote . "A stripped-down, more manoeuvrable, and significantly lightened version of the American Brewster Buffalo was the FAF's main fighter until 1943. Results with this fighter were very good, even though the type was considered to be a failure in the US Navy and with British and Dutch Far East forces. In Finnish use, the Brewster had a victory rate of 32:1 - 459 kills to 15 losses." it looks like they Figured out a way to improve what many said was a failed fighter. the Finn also fielded Hawker Hurricanes and even Curtiss Hawk P75's that given to them by the Germany have captured them in Europe. it is also worth remembering they supported the AXIS powers. once Germany invaded Russia they were then given BF109 G series Aircraft and other Axis Fighters Fiat G.50 . in their continuation wars against the Russians following on from the winters wars of 1939/40 finally in 1944 Finland agreed a peace deal with the Russians on conditions that they would expel all German force out of Finland to avoid been invaded themselves.
So it looks like those Finns are good pilots even been able to turn a bad plane into a good one.
Don't forget the Finns also flew the Gloster Gladiator.
Yes they had an odd collection of Fighters including all these below. I imagine the Russian one were captured during the Winter War 1939/40 also they used two types from Gloster .
Polikarpov I-15
Gloster Gauntlet
Gloster Gladiator
Hawker Hurricane
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Morane-Saulnier M.S.406
Fokker D.XXI
Fiat G.50 Freccia
Curtiss P-36 Hawk
Brewster F2A Buffalo
Caudron C.714
Petlyakov Pe-3
Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk
VL Myrsky @@broccanmacronain457
Indeed Finns were able to jury rig and improve the Brewster to fit their needs. It was not a bad plane at all. It was nimble, rugged, steady gun platform. Finnish WWII pilots loved the plane and called it the Pearl of the Sky. And that's a huge compliment considering the variety of planes Finns flew in the WWII.
To the contrary US Navy, Brits and Dutch hated the plane. But they flew in very different conditions with different versions. For example Brits in Malay complained the engine would easily overheat and spew oil. Finns solved that problem by installing the oil pump upside down. Jury rigging made Brewster into the workhorse it was in the Finnish service.
It was outdated in 1941 but by 1943-44 it was hopelessly outdated and no jury rigging could change that.
And what made all the difference was the pilots.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of the Soviet planes were biplanes or other obsolete aircraft. I am not knocking the Finnish pilots, the Buffalo was such a flying turd wagon it is amazing they ever shot down any aircraft. Of course they Buffaloes were probably modded enough to not really be Buffaloes anymore.
@@jasonrhodes9726, the Finns modded the Buffalo considerably, stripping out a lot of the armour. It allowed the plane to go toe to toe with the I-16
It was not the Buffalo F2A, but Brewster Model 239, denavalized version of the F2A-1 Buffalo, ordered by Finland in 1939 as a means of acquiring a modern fighter plane. Unlike the US Navy F2A-1, the plane was lighter, turned better and had better overall performance due to being stripped of arresting gear and all other equipment necessary for carrier landings, together with a more powerful Wright R-1820-G5 engine producing 10 hp more compared to the US Navy Buffalos.
The planes themselves arrived too late to participate in the Winter War, but were used extensively in the Continuation War all the way to late 1944 when they were withdrawn from service. Finnish pilots regarded the plane as very maneuverable, easy to fly, and also not requiring extensive maintenance. LeLV 24 had a score of 26:1 using B-239 as they claimed 477 Soviet planes shot down for a loss of just 19 B-239s. The real kill rate in air combats was actually 32:1, if counted B-239s downed by AAA, it goes down to 26:1.
Surprised there was no mention of the P-47 Thunderbolt...
that one had really high pilot survival rate, but wasn't the best air-to-air
@@thejohnbeckmany US pilots preferred the P-47 and the Spitfire to the P51 but didn’t have the range to go Berlin and back. The P-47 was a flying tank the engineering must have been unbelievable.
@@markcook4043Which explains why the Thunderbolt aka "Jug" was more successful in the ground attack role. The P-47 could absorb damage that would destroy any other fighter and still bring it's pilot home.
Its ratio was low by comparison, 4.6:1
It was great for killing horses, shooting tractors and farmers working their fields.
A USMC Corsair was the first aircraft to shoot down a North Korean jet during the Korean War,
so what?
I beg to differ as the F82 twin boom Mustang was the first to achieve this feat.
If you added up all the claimed kills for just the top 8 planes, youd find they knocked out more aircraft than were built in the whole war!
The F2 Brewster Buffalo was selected as #1 because it shot down a bunch of Russian aircraft. Yet, it was outclassed by every other aircraft from the Axis air forces like the Japanese Zero. Perhaps the Fins could have taught the other Allied pilots how to fly it.
Finnish allies didn't really fly Buffalos.
Brewster Buffalo was certainly not "outclassed by every other aircraft from the Axis". It was not even outclassed by every other aircraft from the Allies either. Surely outclassed by top of the line machines such as Zero, Spitfire, BF-109 or Mustang, as it was also outclassed by top of the line Soviet fighters. But it was not outclassed by everything and not in every circumstance.
Many of those 477 air victories by Brewsters were against Soviet bombers just as many BF-109 victories were, and many Spitfire victories etc. In fact most of BF-109 or Spitfire victories were not not against best fighters but bombers and other aircraft. Yet the 477 victories by Brewster does include lot of fighters such as Soviet Hawker Hurricanes (lend lease) and other high performance fighters. Your insinuation that Brewesters only shot down bad aircraft is without any merit.
Additionally that could be said of all aircraft in the list. Only a minority of aircraft they shot down were enemy top of the line fighters. By far most of their kills were bombers or other aircraft not so good at dogfight.
After you have really thought about the numbers and all, then it all comes down to pilot skill. Just as the video correctly states.
@@jariveturi3004 : When I said every other Axis fighter, I qualified it by saying "like the Mitsubishi A6M Zero." Not every bi/tri plane flying then. However, the BF-109 and the FW-190 would outclass the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in speed and certain maneuverability aspects. I also said that perhaps the Finish air force pilots could have taught the other Allied pilots how to fly it. Perhaps "The Buzz" should make a separate list of kills for fighter on fighter.
It could have been obsolete Soviet aircraft and the Finnish Buffaloes could have been so heavily modified they weren't really Buffaloes anymore.
@@jasonrhodes9726 The modifications done to Finnish Buffalos weren't very excessive. Decent improvements, but nothing spectacular.
Also their claimed kill list happens to be available in wikipedia: fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Lentolaivue_24:n_ilmavoitoista_ja_sotatoimitappioista
For BW there are some bombers at the start, but after that it's a long list of different fighters. At first slightly worse types, then equal or slightly better and at the end undoubtedly superior La-5s.
It's all about the pilot. Rank, and what kind of aircraft you are in matters not, it's all about the pilot and their connection to their machine. Look at the red baron
Clearly the ratios shown here for the Spitfire and Me109 are not head to head ratios, but rather on their effectiveness against other, lesser planes on each side.
Only a buffoon would choose to engage in a fair fight. The best fighter pilots were effectively assassins who opted for sneak attacks.
Especially the Buffalo, given that 4 went up at Midway and 0 landed with 0 kills recorded. The only fighters to score kills at Midway were the Zeros and Wildcats. Honestly insulted that neither of those planes were on. Especially the early dominance of the Zero
@@trealosgaming3345 A lot of Zeros were shot down throughout the war. That affects the kill ratio.
I’d never want to fight any of these aircraft in a Buffalo. They all outclass it by miles.
A really important factor to consider is these planes when in a target rich environment and the German and Finn pilots had that also. Planes like the Brewster Buffalo and Gloster Gladiator were remarkably well suited for Finland's harsh environment and combined with the skill of the Finnish pilots and the target rich environment the Russian's were happily providing them. They would have scored highly. The Germans also had highly skilled pilot force and top notch airplanes and again a massively target rich environment were practically almost every plane in the sky was your enemy and in that situation you can find enemies easier than they can find you.
the germans overall skill diminished over the course of the war for obvious reasons
Gloster Gladiator in general didn't play any significant role in Finland. The most important fighter in Finland during the Winter War 1939-40 was the Fokker D.XXI.
In the early Continuation War 1941-44 the most important fighter was the Brewster B-239. Also the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, Curtiss Hawk 75-A and Fiat G.50.
From 1943 onwards the main fighter was the Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2/6.
@@timoterava7108 actually the Fokker DXXi was really to few in number to be significant in it's own right. Finland in WW2 is somewhat like Ukraine now where they possess small numbers of a large variety of weapons and are having to learn them all individually. Finland in WW2 was probably the most elite experienced fighting force in WW2 simply because of the wide variety of weapons they gladly accepted and used
Ask yourself this question why did the Dutch succumb to German bombing if the Fokker DXXi was a capable fighter?
@@paulsnell534
I agree, that there were way too few Finnish fighters - especially in the Winter War - and that the Fokker D.XXI was already outdated then.
What I meant with it being significant was, that it was still the best Finnish fighter for the most part of the Winter War and it achieved almost 3/4 of the total Finnish air victories (218). The Gloster Gladiator was the runner-up with less than 1/4 of the total amount.
The Buffalo....it's not the plane...It's the Pilot
Yes! Relying on stupid Russian pilots!!
It's more like a healthy mix of skilled pilot, capable ground crew, reliable machinery, superior tactics, better training, competent leadership and an enemy who's exactly the opposite of all the former.
my personal favorite was the dehavilland mosquito. what a badass !
You missed the De Havilland Mosquito fighter/night fighter which had a kill ratio of 12:1
Disappointing, but not unusual, is the lack of mention of the Wildcat as produced by General Motors / Eastern. As remembered by the highly respected aviation author Barrett Tillman, the FM-2 had a kill ratio of 32:1. Read his article from Flight Journal in February of 2014 "The Wilder Wildcat".
The Wildcat was underestimated and underrated. Slower than the Zero and didn't turn as fast in the hands of experienced pilots they dominated against the Zero time and time again.
@@timsparks1858 Let me guess: You looked at results of large scale battles from Wikipedia, which include dozens if not hundreds of bombers and cause of losses aren't specified. I have seen many people do this, because there aren't proper sources available in internet, but what makes them think it's a sufficient comparison at all?
When every recorded small scale fighter to fighter engagement have been compared from sources of both sides, Zeros have indeed been on the positive against F4F-3 and 4. Later on Wildcats got better, but even in first engagement with few F6Fs included, they did pretty much evenly. The thing to note is that the losses on both sides were low considering how many fighters took part in them and the ratios vary a lot, most likely thanks to pilots included in them and the overall tactical position.
In 1943 when F6F quickly replaced F4F, it become apparent the IJN was behind in both performance and tactics, though there isn't anything absolutely catastrophic on air until 1944. That's when IJN losing 50-95% of their fighters on air become the norm.
Also served the Royal Navy well as the Martlet.
yeah, but I read that the fm-2 was a lighter, modified version of the standard wildcat; so it really can't describe it as just a wildcat.
@@16rumpole In later Wilcats they tried to improve it's performance. With the Brits they were going to face Me109s and Focker Wolfe 190s.
Luftwaffe pilots were allowed to count aircraft they strafed on the ground as part of their tally. Given that approximately 2,800 Soviet planes were shot up on the ground in the first 48 hours of Operation Barbarossa, kills racked up very quickly, but many of them were not in air-to-air combat. Anyone wanting a fantastic book on the Luftwaffe on the Ostfront should read Mike Spick's "Aces of the Third Reich." Thanks for the video.
When the buffalo came out at number 1, I knew I couldn't believe anything in this video.
In Finnish service Fiat G.50 reached 33/1 kill/loss ratio, exceeding those of Me-109 and Brewster Buffalo.
Once i heard the pronunciation of Corsair in this video, had to question the validity of the entire production 🥴
The person narrating these videos seems to have some noticeable problems with pronunciation, often with the same word in the same paragraph. Clearly reading off a page, with no prior read-thru with someone familiar with the material, production process & values clearly need a bit of polish.
@@grantgarrod2232 Yeah, when I come across videos like this, I know its just another click-baity AI produced channel. UA-cam is full of them these days.
@@grantgarrod2232 It's not a person. It's AI (computer generated)
Like Spitsfire
Who would ever think that the Buffalo would be rated in the top 8!
Its more about how well trained the pilots were, the planes quality comes second. Certain planes were certainly better than others, but the pilots definitely made them lethal.
Would be very suspect of some of the numbers quoted here. The P-40 had an 18-1 kill ratio? No chance.
The P40 was a very good turning plane at higher speeds. Once the tactics were worked out, it did very well. It wasn't suitable for the western European front due to a not great top speed and poor high altitude performance (dogfighting there centered around where the bombers flew). In the Pacific it was overshadowed by the US carrier based planes. Its best showing was in areas of the war like Mainland Asia, North Africa, and the Mediterranean that get less fanfare.
Philliben You are forgetting the P40 was the third most produced US fighter with 14,000 made right behind the P51 and the P47 and was in service at the start of WWII and served in all theaters and by all allied nations till the end of the war. numbers and time in service and it was a damn good plane maybe not the best but good enough that it got the job done when flown to its strengths. The P40 outperformed the Hurrycane as proven in the African campaign realizing also the Hurricane never got the later 60 series 2 stage merlin it soldiered on with its single stage supercharged engine just as the P40 did, both planes being under appreciated in the war..They both were the sluggers that slugged it out during the whole war !!!
I agree. It is well known that the P-40 was the Allied fighter that suffered the most losses, in absolute numbers, in all theaters of operations. A kill/loss ratio of 2:1 would surprise me, because they shot down many bombers, but were defeated by ME-109s and Zeros in most fighter-on-fighter encounters, so I think the 18:1 ratio is unrealistic.
Most sources cite the Grumman F6 Hellcat as tops with a 19 to 1 kill ratio.
Fiat G50 in Finnish service had a K/D of 41/1 IIRC.
Adversaries play a great role here: if you were facing early Russian you'd have the highest tally. Similarly mid to late Japanese would increase your numbers. The kill numbers of German aces moving from Eastern to Western theaters of war may illustrate this case better.
Being a pilot in any air force requires skill and grit and the BF 109 was an excellent plane but I do wonder how many of those kills were from obsolete Polish biplanes and Soviet aircraft caught on the ground.
Good video. Congratulations! What about the FW-190?
This also depends on the theatre in question..and in which time period. The Battle of Britain pitched both pilots of quality and experience ( probably the German pilots had more experience at that time ) and comparable aircraft together. Likewise in the Pacific at Medway..the aircraft and pilots were reasonably comparable. Towards the end of the war, the Germans and Japanese were desperately short of pilots with any experience at all.
And they were outnumbered since 1944
😂😂
The Japanese pilots at Midway were much more experienced than the Americans. The American victory was mostly due to superior code breaking.
@@edwardadams9358 well yes, the broken purple code. But the otherwise excellent japanese Pilots suffered by having almost unarmored planes and no self-sealing tanks, the Zero was an excellent plane but a lucky stray shot doomed it. Also the JAF had an abysmal or non-existent pilot recovery service.
@@edwardadams9358 Along with a series of fortunate events and being in position, with training in initiative, to take advantage of them
The kill ratio is an interesting metric for gauging success however, when looking at the victories of these aircraft, one needs to also look at the apposing aircraft as as well as the year in which most of the usage occurred. For example, how well would the Buffalo have done against a bf-109 or FW-190.
If lucky 2:1. But Luck is all. Especially since I only know It was a flying coffin in Midway where escort Zeros cleaned them up with no issues
It’s similar to the corsairs situation, the only reason why the planes kill ratio is so low is because it can really late in the war, really only entering widespread use in the navy in really late 1944, were it then became a menace
exactly. There are many factors behind the success of any type or variant. If two types flew in the same battle with equal numbers, support, training system, doctrine etc, then just maybe the Kill Ratio would be meaningful.
Nice logo.😊
Interesting. Have to admit, I did not see the Brewster Buffalo as number one coming. It’s a good example of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” While it is statistically true the Finnish Buffalo pilots wracked up impressive kill rates in an air war of attrition with the Soviets, it certainly doesn’t tell the story of a superior fighter plane.
Yes.This is a ratio based on the aircraft of the enemy at the time, not a comparison of the performance of all aircraft.
Sour grapes anyone?
RoboVoice is an absolute pain!
"...Although superior to the Grumman F3F biplane it replaced, and the early F4Fs, the Buffalo was largely obsolete when the United States entered the war, being unstable and overweight, especially when compared to the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero....", "...During the Continuation War of 1941-1944, the B-239s (de-navalized F2A-1s) operated by the Finnish Air Force proved capable of engaging and destroying most types of Soviet fighter aircraft operating against Finland at that time, and claimed in the first phase of that conflict 32 Soviet aircraft shot down for every B-239 lost, producing 36 Buffalo "aces". ..."
This video is an example of taking one stat and drawing (or implying) something a far more important conclusion. The kill-to-loss ratio of early-war planes is meaningless when talking about the 'best' (which is subjective and arbitrary anyway) fighter/pursuit aircraft of the war. Anyone who would walk away from this video thinking that the Buffalo and P-40 were some of the most outstanding fighters of war would be gravely wrong. With that said, I think that almost anyone would agree that an inferior aircraft in the hands of a skilled pilot could be very lethal, while an outstanding aircraft in the hands of an inferior pilot will usually be ineffective.
I cant believe there was no mention of the Hawker Hurricane
Agreed. Hurricanes accounted for more kills than Spitfires
Ratio means you need to check how many of of the other aircraft were also downed... ;)
The Spitfire was used for much longer than the Hurricane which was obsolete by mid war.
@@clivemoore-q6w Only in the Battle of Britain
The Hurricane was outdated by 1940. Even in the BoB, it's performance was inferior and had the worst kill ratio.
Good video but very poor editing at the end. Pasted the advert for 6 Fighter jets with highest kill-to-loss ratio on top of the display for the Brewster Buffalo .... and another over h top of the Hellcat. Basic Error only needed a few seconds to be able to pause and read. Shows the total lack of checking the video before putting out there :(
I have a feeling that the Bf-109 and Buffalo had such a high number of kills only because of the large number of lackluster Soviet aircraft they shot down.
Bingo. Shooting down a wretched wooden biplane flown by a girl, or some kid with zero experience, with a Bf109 is hardly a measure of skill.
considering would the Soviet air force was flying at that time as front line fighters I would not consider the Buffalo as top rated Fighter .
Polikarpov I-153 was a Bi Planeeeps fighter that's could not even hit 200 mph . and the other Polikarpov I-16 just about made 288 mph.
as for the Germans yes it was a Turkey shoot at the start again facing these same dated fighters and newer planes like the Mig 1 and other more modern designs. but it did not stay that way the Soviets went on to build some great Planes and the Luftwaffe was on the back foot from 1943 . WW2 Top scoring ACE Eric Hartmann all had kills against Western Allied piloted aircraft though many still will question the total of 355 kills mostly on the Eastern front . the Me 109 should be top because it was in Combat in the Spanish Civil war then on all Fronts or the German military campaign until the very last hrs of WW2.
What I find odd is were is the FW 190 the so called Butcher Bird of the Me 262 . but after doing some digging around they are correct here just through its kills V losses the Finnish Buffalos have the best ratio of WW2 and they used that Fighter until 1944.
things that go against those other Luftwaffe aircraft is they suffer even higher losses once the USAAF changed tactics from close Bomber Escorts to free range Fighter sweeps and the dire quality of pilot training. both have good kill ratios once they were in the air . but more were shot down trying to take off or just destroyed on the ground. also most of the late war Luftwaffe records were lost.
this is not after all just about the highest kill ratio all the other aircraft listed were lost in high numbers no surprise that no soviet aircraft even make the list even though they probably shot more Luftwaffe aircraft down than any other nation. but in turn suffered massive losses.
That's because Russians are so stupid. (I have more than twenty Russian friends, so I know they are sooo stupid!)
and there it is again. Never disappoints.
It's just as weak as the claim for F-16s and F-15s kill ratios against weak Arab forces.
Well that completely floored me! Arguably the worst fighter of WWII is top of the list. This is largely down to the Finns as nobody else had much success with it.
The Buffalo was in the right place at the right time.
now imagine the fins would have had actually good planes
I can't see final ratio due to endcard pop-ups. How do I remove them?
Pretty sure you forgot the Fw 190
8. Lockheed P-38 Lightning (7:1 Kill to Loss ratio)
7. North Amercian P-51 Mustang (11:1)
6. Vought F4U Corsair (11:1)
5. Supermarine Spitfire (13:1)
4. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (18:1)
3. Grumman F6F Hellcat (19:1)
2. Messerschmitt Bf-109 (21:1)
1. Brewster F2A Buffalo (26:1)
P47 shot down more planes than the 51 hands down
Me 109 series shot down tree time's more plains you say and the fins had G50 with 44:1 KD ratio...
P-38 was more successful in Pacific campaign than in Europe. A great case study actually
A lot of over-water flying there - two engines ensured one extra to bring you home if damaged.
Although the various models of the Me/Bf109 were very successful, it is noticeable that they (apparently) shot down more RAF planes in the Battle of Britain than were ever in service at the time. It is interesting that the formidable FW190 does not appear on this list, possibly due to its later entry into combat. It was certainly good enough to expedite the production of improved Spitfires.
define "apparently"..
To be honest I question all these figures. Some of them are so ridiculous - a six year long war would have ground to a halt in the first few months such are the heavy losses, that then have to be replaced, not just machines but pilots. I think you judge the effectiveness of any of these planes by who actually won the war; and the crucial points within that war when it was won. On that basis you have to say the Hawker Hurricane was the best fighter plane. Without the Hurricane in The Battle of Britain the RAF would not have won.
All sides over claimed.
Some over claims were accidental, others not so much.
From memory, after the Battle of Britain the German changed the way they counted, and it required another pilot to verify (again from memory)
From what I gathered from books & such the A model 190's didn't fare too well against daylight bombers since their engines lost a lot of power at altitude. 109's & later model D-190's had superchargers & could at least keep mustangs occupied...
@@levonbryan5577 The Fw190's fared very well against the bombers,
It was the escorting fighters that they didn't fair well against ;-)
And to be a bit more accurate, it was until Jimmy Doolittle changed the tactics that pretty much the entire Luftwaffe lost the ability to be effective against the bombers (or to be nowhere near as effective)
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was chosen as #1 of my WW2 fighter planes of the pacific theater because it was used very successfully in the pacific and europe operations and it shot down lots of japanese aircraft.
It really was not that successful in Europe. Too cold at high altitudes, too ergonomically bad to switch form cruising to combat quickly, until later models poor roll rate, wasn't significantly faster than German types, and easy to spot. Excellent in the Pacific where it flew at medium altitudes and was much faster than the zero but really barely on par with the 109 and 190. In the end the P-51 had better range, more advantages over German fighters, and cost 1/2 as much as a Lightning.
The Lightning is a really beautiful plane though 😀
@@patwilson2546 the P-38 was faster (at all altitudes), faster in a climb, had a much higher ceiling and was more maneuverable at speed than either the Fw 190 or the Bf 109 and had an excellent roll rate with the addition hydraulically boosted ailerons in most produced version, the P-38L. Its Achilles heel was its dive speed was restricted by compressibility and the Germans knew this. Compressibility was never rectified in the ETO however it was in the PTO with the addition of dive brakes. The Jap planes sucked in a dive so it really didn’t matter.
good points, I agree with you on the beauty of the plane; if there is one word I would use to describe it; it would be streamlined,@@patwilson2546
Used as a light, almost medium bomber it lost almost 100mph in speed, so more were shot down than other fughters, because it was the fastest fighter for 2 years, it was converted as unarmed photo recon (90% of al European photos were taken by it) plane and again lost more planes in a non fighter roll due mostly to ground fire. THE Figures for the 38 are always screwed up. DOOLITTLE called it "the Sweetest plane I've ever flown" Lindbergh flew it in combat in the Pacific , that makes it a hard plane to be number 2 to anyother.
Where is the FW190 which is a better and tougher aircraft than the 109. Seems like this list is extremely biased.
Speaking off the cuff: I suspect because the FW190 entered the war later, and was thrown against more and better aircraft as the experienced German pilots were gradually expended, it didn't get the numbers commensurate with its objective merit.
I guess because it not fighter it is jet fighter
@@NewwangXFw190 was a radial engine fighter
Interesting. I agree with this information. I do wonder that the P-47 is not mentioned.
FW190 is not on the list? Wtf?
An error at 2:45 (February 1942, soon after Pearl Harbour, could have nothing to do with either the Guadalcanal campaign or Corsair's career, both coming later). Then, at 3:18, Corsair discussed but a Hellcat shown (landing onboard).
No Hurricane, no Zero, no FW190, Yak9......seems very American biased
The absence of the FW-190A is pretty absurd. And the Oscar should be ahead of the A6M. It was preferred to all other Army types except the Ki-100. A Japanese ace said "We owe our survival to the Ki-43." 16 P-38s tried for 30 minutes to down one, and all had to turn back from lack of ammo and fuel... All the Oscar did was continuous circles at reduced power. This happened numerous times with a variety of Japanese types, but usually not the A6M, as Navy pilots were indoctrinated to use speed, not turns.
@@wrathofatlantis2316Kill to loss ratio is a pretty random and not particularly useful measure - as the Brewster Buffalo's position at the top of this table demonstrates. It's as much a measure of the opposition the plane faced as anything. The 109 was the Luftwaffe's main front line fighter early in the war when it was winning. In Poland, and in the USSR at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa it came up against obsolete opponents and there were plenty of kills to be had. By the time 190s started to arrive the quality of oppsition it faced was higher that what the 109 had been up against in some of those early campaigns. Similarly, the Grumman Hellcat scored a lot of victories against inexperienced Japanese pilots in obsolete aircraft in the later stages of the Pacific campaign. If you're making a list of the best fighters of WW2 then the 190 certainly belongs there. And I'm personally a bit of a fan of the Hawker Tempest. Going by the metric they're using though I guess their list is accurate.
@@johnwilkin1277 I do not count kill ratios as reliable at all. I almost never quote them. A detailed study of individual group encounters, where no other types could be present, between the F4U-1 and the A6M (mostly A6M2, A6M3 and fewer A6M5s) for the entire first year of the Corsair's introduction, found the actual loss ratio, in a fairly large number of specific battles where only these two types were there, to be no better than 1:1, not anywhere near the claimed 11:1... Sure it got better later, but not by a factor of over 10. (F4U vs A6M, Osprey, last chapter) In the same vein, there is no way Hartmann had 352 kills, absolutely none, and while 200 would seem plausible, estimates looking at the actual individual losses can go as low as 80-100... Even in the cases claimed verified by camera, the quality is so poor that a kill smoking from ten other guys will pass in front and make it as yours, all the other ten kills being "verified" by camera. Allied overclaiming was less severe than Axis (maybe 3 vs 5 times, especially regarding the Japanese), simply because the Allies usually outnumbered everyone, and so had many fewer targets to overclaim on, but that is about as far as it goes.
The best in Finnish service was FIAT G50, with kill/loss ratio of 33/1.
O P-40 tem um lugar no meu coração Mas Eu fico com o p-51 Mustang! Um caça incrível e muito Bonito🌟
O P-40 foi um cavalo de batalha nos primeiros anos da guerra. Operando de forma confiável em condições adversas, como o Norte da África, e segundo relatório, teve um desempenho melhor que o Furacão. Da Tunísia contra os alemães à China contra os japoneses, manteve-se firme durante anos críticos da guerra até que aeronaves melhores estivessem disponíveis. [desculpe pelo Google Tradutor, felicidades]
The P-40 was a work horse for the earlier years of the war. Operating reliably in harsh conditions, like North Africa, and by report performed better than the Hurricane. From Tunisia against the Germans to China against the Japanese, it held its own through critical years of the war until better aircraft were available.
@@iansneddon2956 excelente!! Felicidades para você também Amigo!🌟
Boy is this deceptive.I would not want to fly a Buffalo on any front.
Your stats on the P40 and the Buffalo are total BS. Overall, in the context of WW2 fighter success, these two would come in much much lower, if not last
Next time i play a flight sim, i'm gonna play the brewster buffalo. The thing has a higher kill/loss ratio than even jet fighters. The most slept on fighter in history!!!!!
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
F-15 Eagle has a 0 to 100 kill ratio. The F-22 now has a 0 to 1 ratio having shot down a Chinese balloon. Some people feared the Raptor would be retired with no kills. Many Raptors are being upgraded so may see another decade of service before being replaced. The USAF is now buying brand new F-15s to replace some of its older models.
The Buffalo??? I'm shocked!!!
That makes two of us but they were cherry-picking the data to a specific field of operation.
@@broccanmacronain457 I get it though, the Finns had success with everything though, they used the Stug III to great effect and were masterful with their artillery so it makes sense...we all think of the Buffalo and Midway, or the Phillipines, just like most of us would never think of the P-40 as that successful but, it was...and hate to quote "Maverick" but it's true, "it's not the plane, it's the pilot..." History has proven that time and again...look at what the Israeli's have done in the Middle East...personally, I think they are the best...even better than the U.S. a dogfight between the two would truly be something to see...wouldn't want to have to bet on a winner...
@@Titus_Vespasianus The key is in the pilot. ...Stupid Russian pilot.
It's the pilot, not the machine.
And also the machine can always be improved, even by jury rigging.
And also, the Brewster B.239 was a different beast than the F2A used in Pacific.
Kill/loss ratio is interesting but some may other factors are overlooked. When the aircraft entered the war and strength of enemy aircraft and pilots at that time, type of aircraft, i.e. bombers, fighters, transports typically engaged, etc.
I about did a spit-take when the Brewster Buffalo emerged as #1, when I was anticipating a more capable and powerful fighter, i.e. Focke-Wulf 190 or Dornier Arrow. But in the context that the Finns had talented pilots and lots of jerry-rigging and improvisation improved on what many other nations saw as a flawed plane, it makes sense. And again, we're talking about kill-to-loss ratios, in aerial combat that probably saw lots of other planes in conflict (the BF-109 faced mostly Polish biplanes in the early phase of the war.)
Just one technical comment on the video: Was the voice auto-generated? There's some really odd inflections and mispronunciations scattered throughout the narration, to the point of being distracting. I'm sure this was well-researched, but please find a person versed in aircraft names, etc. so you have a cleaner and more comprehensible presentation. That's my only criticism. Thanks!
What biplane in Polish Air Forces ?, Poles managed to shot down 126 German planes in September 1939, despite having only 300-400 planes in their Air Force. While Germans started with 1300 planes. Just for historical accuracy.....none of Polish first line planes were biplanes
The Polish P1 plane was the first all-metal fighter in the world, and the P24 in 1934 was the FASTEST IN THE WORLD. REGARDS
Bottom line about german ace's, all they had to do was claim an aerial victory, where as nearly all other air forces in WWII, and by the way WWI, required a witness to the victory, either on the ground or in the air, to substantiate the victory. So therefore if every airforce played by the same rules, the statistics would be totally different.
Unrealistic list.
The two major players that lost WW2 had to do with shortage of materials, fuel and , most important at the latter stages of the war, well trained pilots. This made them easy prey for seasoned Allied fighter pilots.
It would be better to make a comparison year by year.
Lie. If Bf-109 21:1 - where were disappeared all most produced fighter planes in history ?
I really would be interested in seeing the studies and or the stats that would put the most ungodly, lackluster and ugly aircraft as the top kill/loss ratio….the Brewster F2A Buffalo? I think that ratio is more like 1.3/1 vs. Japan
Also that in the Pacific theatre Buffalos were fighting in defence early in the war. Against Japanese, who had the initiative, better planes and much better trained pilots at that point. Especially Imperial Navy pilots, who were creme de la creme at that point.
FA2 used in Pacific was rather different beast than the B.239 used by Finns, If Finns had used F2A the kill ratio would also have been affected rather much.
As to B.239 being ugly, I beg to differ. "Sky's Pearl", as was its one nickname in Finland, is a beautiful plane.
As to lackluster, just ask the pilots of the 477 Russian planes downed by Finns how lackluster it was... ;)
@@jannelonnqvist2947 we’ll beauty is in the eye of the beholder, personally it looks “chunky lissious” but to each it’s own. Regarding it’s record vs. Russians well the top German aces in WW II racked up record kills in the 100’s “Hartmann had 352, Bär 220, Rall 275, Rudorffer 224 and 95% of all those kills were in Easter front vs. Russian aircraft” so if everyone was playing by the same rules and every other country max kill’s was below 60 and the Germans had such high number of kills only leads to the conclusion that the Russian were using Quantity vs. Quality overwhelm with numbers and who cares with the losses because they had vast amounts of reserve’s and the Germans and their allies did not, which would explain the Finn’s high kills on the Buffalo. Now in equal terms like in the Pacific the Buffalo was at best 1/1 kill ratio and that is being very generous.
@@Bulico123 Wouldn't describe Pacific as equal with terms like "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". Japanese might've had almost an upper hand during the very early part of the conflict but by mid to late 1942 the US planes started to dominate. And with the loss of more experienced aircrews the Japanese effectiveness decreased a lot.
In the Pacific, where the Buffalo first saw combat with U.S. forces, it was quickly found lacking against more nimble and better-performing Japanese aircraft. Its slower speed and poor climb rate were significant handicaps in air combat.
The Finns' use of the Buffalo against the Soviets does stand out as an anomaly, where the aircraft achieved a commendable kill-to-loss ratio due to several factors including the tactical acumen of Finnish pilots, the specific operational environment, and perhaps lesser-quality opposition at certain times.
I think some of these may be inaccurate; I don't know if the Warhawk and Bf-109 were that dominant; or for that matter, the Buffalo.
The source of the data on kill ratio is not reliable if they are based on the report of the pilots.
What happenened to the P 47 and hawker Tempest and Fw 190 The kill ratio of german pilots on the Eastern front is suspect as all the pilot had to do was open fire on russian aircraft and he was able to claim a kill regardless of whether aircraft crashed or not hence the extraordinary high scores claimed How anyone could list the flying barrel Buffalo as number one is beyond me they were outclassed by practically everything else in the sky A Gloster Gladiator would be a threat to them
Its all about kill to loss ratio that is why you get a odd result.
annnd there it is. The very old and tired illegitimate argument of "it was a against Russian aircraft so it doesn't count" shtick. I specifically went down into these comments to amuse myself with the ridiculous statements that one always gets on WW2 youtube videos and in particular that one. Apparently the only kills that count in aerial combat are American ones or allied ones. Everyone elses are just bs. God it never changes does it. Americans are mega chad aces with invunerable, invincible aircraft and the axis are just chumps with toy aircraft who made up all their claims. Yep, never disappoints.
The Finnish Air Force actually had 30 MKII Gloster Gladiators in WWII. By 1941 they were considered obsolete and used only in reconnaissance. Before that two Finnish pilots had become aces with Gladiator.
At the eastern front the soviets used enormous numbers of IL-2 ground attack planes . These were quite feared by german infantry, but without proper fighter escort the slow IL 2 was an easy prey for german fighters like BF109 or FW190, in contrast to P47 and Hawker Tempest. I think this explains the high kill rate of german aces in the east.
@@hansulrichboning8551 I wouldn't call IL-2 as easy prey!
Certainly easier than top of the line FIGHTER aircraft but still a far cry from easy prey methinks
What about the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt?
Didn’t include how bad the Brewster was in the pacific
Think all your numbers off
P40 didn’t do well against Zeros also
How could you not know this?
@ 8:09 it shows 109s with gun pods? Can someone enlighten me please?
P 47 d is best of ALL
By the time we got to #2, I was convinced the Jug was going to be #1.
@@000-z8nI agree
So why did it have less than stellar kill ratio of just 4.6:1?
Interesting, but this says very little regarding the aircraft. It does say a lot about efficient use of the aircraft you do have.
I think your algorithm for calculating these ratios might be incorrect. It seems like your ratio is based on the total amount of air craft built by the amount lost in combat which is incorrect. The P40 for instance had over 10,000 built but saw so little action because they were inferior to the P51, P38 and P47.
The P-40 saw an enormous amount of action.
anyone else notice that the spitfire was number of pilots lost and not number of planes lost like the others. how many spitfires were lost in combat but the pilot simply parachuted safely over Britain to fight again?
I have serious doubts about the Spitfire claims. Fighting the Germans, their top ace had only around 40 victories vs the Germans having several aces with over 100 kills against the British over England
All a question of missions flown, Germans flew till dead
Allied pilots flew a fixed amount of missions. German pilots was "fly till you die".
Nah it's real. RAF pilots nearly got wiped out too and had loads of rookies.
Bf-109s Had a rather short operational time (window) over Britain in contrast to the British fighters who could be in the air for a much longer time.
And when the 109 was severely damaged it did not make it back to its base in France, but was lost.
"several aces with over 100 kills against the British over England" really?
Corsairs, pronounced “course-airz”, were not operated much from US carriers but instead from island airfields. The Brits figured out how to land them on carriers.
English!!! How is it possible she’s getting worse at it as she puts in more and more time!?
🙄🇨🇺🇺🇸
It's free content, stop whining.
What a twist!
Also Finnish airforce FIAT G50 Freccia has awsom kill ratio
i was always under the impression that the Hurricane scored more kills than the Spitfire
No Hawker Hurricane is a fail because it shot down 1500 aircraft and lost 200 which is like a 7.5 /1 k/d ratio.
The sea Hurri or that land Hurri,?
It is official! The Buffalo was the best aircraft of WWII. This fact has been kept top secret until now when aircraft equivalent or slightly superior to the Buffalo have finally been produced!
Nothing about the stats in this vid is remotely accurate.
No fw 190?
This is Terrible, these ratios are nowhere near correct. The Buffalo has the beat kill ratio?
Yup, thanks to those amazing Finnish pilots of HävLLv 24!
Killing a transport is still a kill. What the kills consist of is a real factor here. You'd expect night fighters to have the best ratios, attacking totally by surpise in every case...
Just gon correct here by adding in inflation of claims and such
8: P51 4:1
7: P38: 4,2:1
6: P40: 5,7:1
5: bf109 6:1 (controversial. But the fascists often did this. Allied did as well but the fascists went to 11 with inflating)
4: Spitfire: 6,4:1
3: F2A/B239 Buffalo: 7:1
2: F4U: 7,3:1
1: F6F: 9,7:1
Inflation taking into account, yer welcome
That still includes planes shot on ground? Specially F6F and F4U racked hundreds of Japanese aircraft on airfields and due to lack of air kills the pilots counted those all the same. I haven't heard if Americans did the same in late war Germany or if Germans did it during Barbarossa. Buffalo and Spitfire might not have any of such.
@@Teh0X affirmative. it does. and everyone did so to bump up their numbers.
so if someone claims 100 planes. you have to remove 2/3rds of their counts. and 4/5ths for the germans.
Excuse me. Where does this data come from? Thanks~
@@人民领袖-s9z mostly independent and easily biased research. In my case, taking the info given and applying mental and physical knowledge to make a more accurate picture. Sadly concrete evidence is next to none other than "trust me"
So do take it with grain of salt
The buffalo and me-109 need asterisks because they scored most of their kills against the soviets. That amounted to shooting fish in a barrel. I am surprised about the Warhawk though. Their success must have been largely due to being primarily in the early war, because they weren’t especially good planes.
I thought the Focke Wulff wins the match, or the Hurricane or even the Thunderbold. Any pilot of WWII even the Finish would laugh about the No 1.
My grandfather served in the 15/jg52 Croatian unit flying the me109. There were 30-40 of them and with other parts of his unit 1/jg52, 2/jg52, 3/jg52, 13/jg52 there were around 150 of them I believe... They shot down over 11000 planes...
I always thought that the German FW 190 was a better plane than the Me 109.