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.

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

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

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..

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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. KZfaq is full of them these days.

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

so what?

I beg to differ as the F82 twin boom Mustang was the first to achieve this feat.

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 !!!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Hm I wonder if they ever met Me262 in the air and how that went for the P-38s (other than the famous lurking landing Me262 turkey shoots).

now imagine the fins would have had actually good planes

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?

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.

@@user-qi9qz5ir6s 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.

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.

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!🌟

Killer, none of the aircraft discussed in this video are jets.

@pike100 ok why are being so sensitive over a word I made a mistake on no wonder people like you say I want a better society and yet you're being a snowflake at the same time

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)

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.

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

yeah for example the japanese zero early in the war had a ratio of 12:1 but when allied planes and air crew training improved they quickly overcame that ratio ... and the japanese planes largely stayed the same for too long.

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.

How could you not know this?

Yup, thanks to those amazing Finnish pilots of HävLLv 24!

If Brewster was an obsolete piece of junk then how on earth did the FInns manage to rack such impressive amount of kills with it? And doesn't the plane's quality make that feat even more impressive, eh? (also, the Brewster B-239 was a different beast than Brewster F2A)

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

It's free content, stop whining.

By the time we got to #2, I was convinced the Jug was going to be #1.

​@@user-fw2dd2cy3cI agree

So why did it have less than stellar kill ratio of just 4.6:1?

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?

P47 shot down more planes than the 51 hands down

The P-40 saw an enormous amount of action.

The sea Hurri or that land Hurri,?

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~

@@user-bj1id4tp3i 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