Juha Tompuri wrote:Yes, I know where Yksjärvi is , but it wasn't (minimum)35-40km from frontline that day.
I thought, we already for a long time speak about 30 kilometers:
Slon-76 wrote:2. I consulted to knowing people concerning that, the plane with described Uuttu symptoms could to fly by about 30 kilometers. To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.
From place Pokryshev's landing up to southern extremity Yskjarvi of 27-28 kilometers, up to northern - 32-33.
Juha Tompuri wrote:The "value" is the Shinkarenko report credibility in details.Slon wrote:To tell the truth, I do not understand, what basic value has this circumstance? "Bulldog" does not approach under given Shinkarenko definition?
I in general have lost a string of your reasonings! You doubt, what Shinkarenko has shot down "Bulldog"?
I here personally on the contrary am confused with an abundance of details in Uuttu's report. Such sensation, that he not in a cabin of a fighter sat, and in front of the TV.
Juha Tompuri wrote:Juha Tompuri wrote: He damaged the plane so that it did not reach the home base, but had to make a forced landing.If not certain, how about: "beyound reasonable doubt"?Slon wrote: How we can know it for certain?
These doubts just not for the benefit of Uuttu. Lieutenant Masich 29/02/40 had in the plane of 80 holes, but nevertheless safely sat in the air base - it is enough such examples. Here only one let out turn...
Juha Tompuri wrote:Did they report what they had seen happening to their leader?Slon wrote:Juha Tompuri wrote:What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?Slon wrote: besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.
I do not know. I assume, that it were pilots from Pokryshev's "three". Pilots young, inexperienced. Could become nervous, having lost the leader.
Or didn't they see it?
I do not know. I have told, that it - only my assumption. They could and to not be in Pokryshev's "three".
Juha Tompuri wrote:I-15bis and Fokker D.21 had both four mg's (one Fokker having 2x20mm + 2 mg's for a while).Slon wrote:Fokker too. We recognize its "antiquarian"?
Bulldog having two.
Yes, I "burdock"...
When wrote it, thought for some reason not of number of machine guns and not about I-15, and about weight of a second volley and about I-16... "burdock"...
Juha Tompuri wrote:I don't know...I find it a bit.Slon wrote:Nevertheless I would like to see the answer to this offer:Put yourself on place Shinkarenko...
And to attribute Shinkarenko the strangest behaviour аnd congenital falsity - not speculative? I thus simply ask you to give reason for your words that Shinkarenko wrote the official report, trying to please any chief...
Juha Tompuri wrote:If you mean did Uuttu manage to damage Pokryshev plane or not, I think I know enough.Slon wrote:
It seems to me, that your mistake that you think that know where the truth.
Then I do not understand, in what sense of our dispute?
You at all do not trust anything, that does not correspond to the story shot down Uuttu. And main your argument - Uuttu shot - Pokryshev has made an emergency landing. It not bad argument, but not "lethal". Only in 7 IAP 4 fighters have returned to this day with holes. In 38 IAP one I-16 in general has been shot down. It without taking into account 25 and 68 IAP. Believe, what all of them - victims Uuttu? In fact the version, that the bullet has been started up from the ground you do not consider in general.