Brewster Buffalo Series Pt 8: The End of the Continuation War 

My pleasure!

Yikes that must have been a harrowing journey packed in there. This whole story taught me that the Finns were badasses and not to be messed with!

Thanks, I enjoyed making it

I'm glad, I had a good time making it

E ery moment spent on it was a pleasure. Thanks for watching sir!

What is so amazing is that all that material must be in Finnish and I have to assume it's not your language. The Brewster pilot I knew told me that after the war he went to see his "boss" "E.S" if he could go and have a last look at his Brewster. E.S said it's OK as long as nobody sees you. I think that also showed how much a pilot would care and love his plane.

I appreciate it, man. And thanks very much for your support!

You're welcome

Thanks!

@@MarkSeven np

Imagine what they could have done with F4Us

@@MarkSeven I wonder... The Wildcat had a narrower undercarriage, not suited for the rugged airfields the Finns operated from. 🤔

@@Franky46Boy Yes. The Wildcats had a problem with ground loops and that cost the Americans a number of aircraft on Guadalcanal. The Reason the Spitfires, 109's and Wildcats all had a narrow space between their landing gear was that in their design it was preferred that the wings not be reinforced to handle the stress on the aircraft of landing. Thus these aircraft all that their landing gears attached to the fuselages - much like WWI vintage planes. The thing was - this caused numerous problems with landing, resulting in the operational loss of aircraft due to accidents - so everyone stopped doing that. With such as the P-40 and F6F - instead of being mounted farther out on the wings and closing until the tires went into the fuselage like on the Fw-190's and P-51's - these aircraft had the landing gears turn 90 degrees and fold backwards into the wings. This enabled the designers to put them closer to the fuselage and not have to strengthen the wings farther out but still have a wider stance than that of Spits, Wildcats and 109's. Of course - with the Wildcat, the landing gear was hand cranked up into the plane by the pilot ... and ... hand cranked down when he wanted to land. .

It appears that the 239 model didn't suffer from the fire-control problem with the wing guns. This is not mentioned in the numerous after-action reports of Llv 24 pilots. This seems to be a result of the drier climate. As for the guns, I found conflicting info as to whether all four guns were .50s or not. Most info points to all .50cal armament on Finnish machines. The Finnish Brewster fighters also had the original sights replaced with British reflector sights in the interval between the Winter and Continuation Wars.

@@MarkSeven Thanks!

I expect wartime claims to be exaggerated in every case, just due to the nature of aerial combat. In this case it's very difficult to verify as Soviet records from the time are impossible to find (for me at least) or unreliable. Likely the Finns are no exception, though I would still expect a favorable kill/loss ratio due to the small number of Finnish Brewsters with a high sortie rate and the known weaknesses in Soviet tactics and training at the time

Let's also remember that it is mentally easier, stronger, to defend ones country than running or flying around in a foreign country for no strong personal reason. Just look at Ukraine today and why not Vietnam and yes the Winter war and many more.

@@hurri7720 Eh ... there are some factors which are effected by that but it shouldn't be overly emphasized. For example - you are wrong about Vietnam. There - the peasants just wanted to be left alone. They fought for the Communists because the Communists came into their village and took all the young men away, then made the store food and weapons in the village - or they would kill them. Most of these people wanted nothing to do with the Communists and a lot of the Catholic Northerners fled to the South when Vietnam was partitioned when the French left. The Government in the South didn't have the drive and determination that the Communists had in the North. There - the Communists regulated every part of everyone's life and were successful at rallying the country to resist American Air attacks. When the Communists took over the South - people fled by the tens of thousands any way they could. What the Communists in the South NVA & VC were able to do - was hide from the Americans. Vietnam had jungle and mountains and soil that lent itself to tunneling. So they hid until they wanted to strike - then they did - and were slaughtered. In Afghanistan - it's all tribal. The Taliban have taken over because the National Army was made up of people who just wanted a job - whereas the Taliban believed that if they died in a Jihad - they'd go instantly to Paradise - where they would have all the virgins they could fuck (not kidding about that). The Finns and the Ukrainians were fighting the Russians. Russia has not had a competent Army in living memory. They have been routinely slaughtered by anyone they've ever fought - until they could bring their numbers to bear. So - yes - Nationalism on the part of the Finns and Ukrainians rallied them to fight - but - it was their competence that made the difference. The Finns always had a competent Army and the Ukrainians have been getting trained by NATO countries for 8 years or so. The thing about the Ukrainians - is that they always hated being controlled by the Russians and the Soviet Union was largely controlled by Russians. When the Germans entered Ukraine they were greeted as Liberators by some. There was a Civil War going on in Ukraine all of WWII. You had the ones that hated the Communists fighting for the Germans and the ones who hated the Germans fighting for the Communists. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw , the psychology was the same, American soldiers did not have any great desire to run around in Vietnam and be shot at, and the draft was not popular either. Kudos to Johnson for ending the thing even if it now feels almost odd that also he had to threat with nuclear weapons. I hope the war in Ukraine will end in a similar way with the Russians having enough of Putin and his war and pulling out. The politics behind it all is an other story.

@@hurri7720 Let me point something out to you. I served during that war and you've no idea what you are talking about. Johnson didn't end the war - that was Nixon. No American President EVER threatened the use of Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam, not Eisenhower, not Kennedy, not Johnson, not Nixon and not Ford. None of them EVER did that. At the start of the war - young American Males accepted the draft. They may not have liked it - but they accepted it. We were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union and China and most of them understood that. These men fought well in Vietnam until the '70's when they realized we were going to quit. Even then - most of them did their duty and fought well. There were a few bad units but most of them did their jobs until they left. I knew some of these men. Because we abandoned Southeast Asia - millions of people died. We had promised to protect them - we quit and we abandoned them. Because of American Retrenchment - the Soviets advanced in Africa and Central America then we did to them in Afghanistan what they had done to us in Vietnam. You don't know a damn thing you silly little twit. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw , Sorry, Johnson my fault and I am old enough, soon 80, to remember that war well. But I am not wrong about the nuclear threat. Quoting the Wikipedia: "On 27 October 1969, Nixon had ordered a squadron of 18 B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons to race to the border of Soviet airspace to convince the Soviet Union, in accord with the madman theory, that he was capable of anything to end the Vietnam War.". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Nuclear_threats_and_diplomacy

Yeah this whole story is wild, I had a great time making this series. Even as a longtime WW2 buff I knew nothing about it. The world is so big.