"P35 or a Buffalo" Topic

As a fighter pilot which would you choose to fly in 1939? The Buffalo is the export version B239/339.

Buffalo stronger airframe to survive most guns carried by aircraft of that period. Also it carried a good gun package.

Of course with my luck I'd run into something equip'd with 20mm cannons and that would be it.

Slightly off-topic. The Italian Re.2000 fighter looked an awful lot like a pirated copy of a P-35. Was the resemblence more than superficial?

The Finns had more success with the Buffalo than anyone ever had with the P-35, or the Re.2000, or the Hungarian derivative of the Italian fighter, the Heja.

Which Buffalo? The early fast maneuverable but less well armed and lacking armour/self sealing tanks models the later well armed and protected but too heavy models or the British in Singapore version with all the disadvantages of the later models and with refurbished airline engines?

Even with that a Buffalo, with the possible exception of the the Singapore models, would be my choice. Better armed faster and stronger. My personal choice would be the Dutch East Indies version B339D with new 1,200 hp Wright engines.

Fatman

@zippyfusenet
One of the main designers of the Reggiane had worked for Servesky but the Re 2000 was really only superficially similar in design. In fact with a smaller engine it was a significantly faster machine. Personally it and its stablemates are my favourite Italian fighters. The 2000 was really limited by its innovative "Wet Wing" which was vulnerable to leaks and battle damage.

Fatman

Also nearly an hour from a post about the Buffalo and no Dom? Somebody in Sheffield go around to his house and check hes OK. :-)

Fatman

Finnish Buffalo for me.

Fatman,
You killed me:

Also nearly an hour from a post about the Buffalo and no Dom? Somebody in Sheffield go around to his house and check hes OK. :-)

Depends on the circumstances- what's the climate where you'd be fighting? Are you looking to do mostly high altitude, or low altitude fighting? Intercepting bombers? Defending against enemy fighters? Strafing Ground Troups?

All that said, I'd take the Buffalo, though as pointed out, there are a few varieties there to choose from. In capable hands, and fighting within the aircraft's strengths, the Buffalo proved itself capable.

"… In capable hands, and fighting within the aircraft's strengths, the Buffalo proved itself capable…"

The Secret of Air Combat…

These would be used in North Africa.

If I remember the plain jane P-35 weaponry was a subject of pilot's unhappiness as being too weak compared to contemporary planes in combat?

The Buffalo, higher rate of speed, greater range and ceiling. Plus 4 50 cals vs 2 50's & 2 30's

… provided the .50s work… ;)

67 Sqn's Buffs in Burma didn't do anywhere near as badly as their colleagues in Singapore, though they were absolute maintenance-hogs. Upon arrival in Burma in January 1942, Wg Cdr Frank Carey (the second-highest-scoring Hurricane ace of the war) took his Hurricane Mk IIb up against a Buffalo in a series of mock air-combat tests. He found that the Buffalo was actually the better aircraft at high altitude, with the two being equal at medium altitude and the Hurricane being the better dogfighter at low altitude.

Thank you for your input, my French squadron 124/II will be armed with the Brewster B339.

a french squadron in north Africa should have p-36 mohawks, or MS-406s