Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research, Christoph Awender's WW2 day by dayand Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld.

Skip to content

If you found the forum useful please consider supporting us. You can also support us by buying books through the AHF Bookstore.

Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Slon-76 on 14 May 2009 22:00

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:
Slon wrote:To tell the truth, I do not understand, what basic value has this circumstance? "Bulldog" does not approach under given Shinkarenko definition?
The "value" is the Shinkarenko report credibility in details.


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.
Slon wrote: How we can know it for certain?
If not certain, how about: "beyound reasonable doubt"?


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:
Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote: besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.
What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?


I do not know. I assume, that it were pilots from Pokryshev's "three". Pilots young, inexperienced. Could become nervous, having lost the leader.
Did they report what they had seen happening to their 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:
Slon wrote:Fokker too. We recognize its "antiquarian"?
I-15bis and Fokker D.21 had both four mg's (one Fokker having 2x20mm + 2 mg's for a while).
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:
Slon wrote:Nevertheless I would like to see the answer to this offer:
Put yourself on place Shinkarenko...
I don't know...I find it a bit.


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:
Slon wrote:
It seems to me, that your mistake that you think that know where the truth.
If you mean did Uuttu manage to damage Pokryshev plane or not, I think I know enough.


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.

Regards
User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Russian Federation
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Juha Tompuri on 15 May 2009 21:03

Slon-76 wrote:
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.
Could it be that you have mixed up the locations of the frontline and the site of Pokryshev forced landing?

Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:To tell the truth, I do not understand, what basic value has this circumstance? "Bulldog" does not approach under given Shinkarenko definition?
The "value" is the Shinkarenko report credibility in details.


I in general have lost a string of your reasonings! You doubt, what Shinkarenko has shot down "Bulldog"?
Someone shot down Uuttu, it well might have been Shinkarenko.

Slon wrote: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.
:)
Uuttu had about 10 minutes time to make observations of his enemies.

Slon wrote:
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.
Slon wrote: How we can know it for certain?
If not certain, how about: "beyound reasonable doubt"?


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...
I don't understand what this has to do with the subject?


Slon wrote:
Juha wrote:
Slon wrote:
Juha wrote:
Slon wrote:besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.
What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?


I do not know. I assume, that it were pilots from Pokryshev's "three". Pilots young, inexperienced. Could become nervous, having lost the leader.
Did they report what they had seen happening to their 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".
Really strange how Pokryshev disappeared from the formation without anyone(?) noticing it.
That is according to the Soviet sources.


Slon wrote: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...
I've already posted one suggestion:
Juha earlier wrote:Maybe because in the match between 1 antique plane against 14 more modern, the outcome wasn't that glorious.




Slon wrote: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?
Any of them at SE Lake Muolaanjärvi about 11.45 - 11.55 hrs Finnish time, being hit from Finnish Bristol Bulldog at the lower part of the fuselage front? Or to the fuselage (right?) side, as Uuttu mentions to have hit an other I-16?


Slon wrote:In fact the version, that the bullet has been started up from the ground you do not consider in general.
I haven't read any facts that would support that theory.


Regards, Juha
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Finland
 
Posts: 9992
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Slon-76 on 15 May 2009 22:36

Juha Tompuri wrote:Could it be that you have mixed up the locations of the frontline and the site of Pokryshev forced landing?


I, frankly speaking, do not know, where the front line on 1th December was exact. Therefore in the first variant I considered from border.

Juha Tompuri wrote:Someone shot down Uuttu, it well might have been Shinkarenko.


Either Shinkarenko, or Shinkarenko/Grigorjev. The third pilot - Didenko, on a victory did not apply.

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote: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.
:)
Uuttu had about 10 minutes time to make observations of his enemies.


Juha!
Well is even little bit more critical concern to story Uuttu! What 10 minutes! Fight above Ruokolahti went 6-8 minutes! Falling of "bulldog" from height of 1500 meters cannot last so much time! Even in view of two attempts to proceed in horizontal flight.

Juha Tompuri wrote: I don't understand what this has to do with the subject?


For example, such:

Juha Tompuri wrote: He damaged the plane so that it did not reach the home base, but had to make a forced landing


Juha wrote: Really strange how Pokryshev disappeared from the formation without anyone(?) noticing it.
That is according to the Soviet sources.


Why did not see? Saw, that he has lagged behind in in area Siesjarvi. I gave the text of report Shinkarenko.

Juha wrote:
Slon wrote: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...
I've already posted one suggestion:
Juha earlier wrote:Maybe because in the match between 1 antique plane against 14 more modern, the outcome wasn't that glorious.


And that all? I think, you have too abstract representation about the orders existing in Air Forces RKKA.

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote: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?
Any of them at SE Lake Muolaanjärvi about 11.45 - 11.55 hrs Finnish time, being hit from Finnish Bristol Bulldog at the lower part of the fuselage front? Or to the fuselage (right?) side, as Uuttu mentions to have hit an other I-16?


And what, about Pokryshev so somewhere it is written? Pokryshev in general to fight did not participate, according to the Soviet documents. I am surprised simply with yours uncompromising


Regards,
User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Russian Federation
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Juha Tompuri on 16 May 2009 19:57

Slon-76 wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:Could it be that you have mixed up the locations of the frontline and the site of Pokryshev forced landing?


I, frankly speaking, do not know, where the front line on 1th December was exact. Therefore in the first variant I considered from border.
Aha, but also border and frontline were not the same thing.


Slon wrote:Juha!
Well is even little bit more critical concern to story Uuttu! What 10 minutes!
Ca. 11.45 - 11.55 hours mentioned at Uuttu report as the estimated aerial battle lenght/time frame.


Slon wrote:Fight above Ruokolahti went 6-8 minutes!
Irrelevant.


Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote: I don't understand what this has to do with the subject?


For example, such:

Juha Tompuri wrote: He damaged the plane so that it did not reach the home base, but had to make a forced landing
Some times one bullet can bring a plane down , sometimes a plane resembling swiss cheese can make it to the home.
So what?

Juha wrote: Really strange how Pokryshev disappeared from the formation without anyone(?) noticing it.
That is according to the Soviet sources.
Slon wrote:Why did not see? Saw, that he has lagged behind in in area Siesjarvi. I gave the text of report Shinkarenko.
I wrote Pokryshev disappeared. Disappearing meaning that nobody saw.

Slon wrote:
Juha wrote:
Slon wrote: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...
I've already posted one suggestion:
Juha earlier wrote:Maybe because in the match between 1 antique plane against 14 more modern, the outcome wasn't that glorious.


And that all? I think, you have too abstract representation about the orders existing in Air Forces RKKA.
I've seen "intentional mistakes"(untrue?) at Soviet Air Force reports (earlier too?). But I think they do not belong to this thread

Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote: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?
Any of them at SE Lake Muolaanjärvi about 11.45 - 11.55 hrs Finnish time, being hit from Finnish Bristol Bulldog at the lower part of the fuselage front? Or to the fuselage (right?) side, as Uuttu mentions to have hit an other I-16?


And what, about Pokryshev so somewhere it is written? Pokryshev in general to fight did not participate, according to the Soviet documents. I am surprised simply with yours uncompromising
As compromise: after that battle three Soviet planes did not reach the home base, could the other also then been hit as Uuttu wrote (and Pokryshev verified)?
Uuttu couldn't find out the names of his opponents.

Regards, Juha
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Finland
 
Posts: 9992
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Slon-76 on 18 May 2009 15:58

Juha Tompuri wrote: Aha, but also border and frontline were not the same thing.


I guessed. ;)
But now it is not so important: we know place Pokryshev's of landing.

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:Juha!
Well is even little bit more critical concern to story Uuttu! What 10 minutes!
Ca. 11.45 - 11.55 hours mentioned at Uuttu report as the estimated aerial battle lenght/time frame.


I.e. he nevertheless did not conduct supervision within 10 minutes?

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:Fight above Ruokolahti went 6-8 minutes!
Irrelevant.


Again the Soviet documents tell lies? What your version?
From words of mister Stennman Osasto Luukkanen documents were not kept.

Juha Tompuri wrote: Some times one bullet can bring a plane down , sometimes a plane resembling swiss cheese can make it to the home.
So what?


Anything. It is simply interesting, as you have defined, that Uuttu has put the Soviet plane such damages, that the plane could not hold on up to the base.

Juha wrote:
Slon wrote:
And that all? I think, you have too abstract representation about the orders existing in Air Forces RKKA.
I've seen "intentional mistakes"(untrue?) at Soviet Air Force reports (earlier too?). But I think they do not belong to this thread


I think, that the person who has reported on destruction of a bomber in whom in a reality there were 3 holes, too was not absolutely fair. Or, for example, than staff LeR-2 was guided, setting off victory Uuttu?
I think, that this theme in general is unpromising. As "honesty" - too inconcrete concept of our case. I think what in most cases very difficultly precisely to tell, who lied, and who sincerely was mistaken.

Juha Tompuri wrote:As compromise: after that battle three Soviet planes did not reach the home base, could the other also then been hit as Uuttu wrote (and Pokryshev verified)?
Uuttu couldn't find out the names of his opponents.


I feel, I has tired you... :)
I already wrote, that I admit, that Uuttu have hit in Pokryshev's plane (or someone another). And it is very probable, that you are right. On extremely measure, any logic contradiction in it is not present.
But your confidence of your correctness at me is not present. First of all because I cannot accept your point of view about a notorious insinuation of fighting report Shinkarenko. I already explained the reasons and I shall not repeat.

As a whole I think, the given discussion can be finished. We shall not achieve 100 % of authentic result. Change your point of view I cannot (I do not have not enough arguments), change most - too I do not see the weighty reasons.

However, the end result is all the same identical - Uuttu has been shot down, a victory to him have included is not proved..

Regards
User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Russian Federation
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Juha Tompuri on 18 May 2009 20:42

Slon-76 wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote: Aha, but also border and frontline were not the same thing.


I guessed. ;)
You could also have asked from me.
I don't bite.

Slon wrote:But now it is not so important: we know place Pokryshev's of landing.
Do you know the exact swamp there?
A sidenote: lucky for Pokryshev, there were Finnish troops at Kekrola just a day earlier.

Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:Juha!
Well is even little bit more critical concern to story Uuttu! What 10 minutes!
Ca. 11.45 - 11.55 hours mentioned at Uuttu report as the estimated aerial battle lenght/time frame.


I.e. he nevertheless did not conduct supervision within 10 minutes?
That is not clearly mentioned there.

Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:Fight above Ruokolahti went 6-8 minutes!
Irrelevant.


Again the Soviet documents tell lies? What your version?
From words of mister Stennman Osasto Luukkanen documents were not kept.
What I ment was that it is here irrelevant how long an another aerial combat lasted.

Slon wrote: It is simply interesting, as you have defined, that Uuttu has put the Soviet plane such damages, that the plane could not hold on up to the base.
Agree, it is interesting.

Slon wrote: As "honesty" - too inconcrete concept of our case. I think what in most cases very difficultly precisely to tell, who lied, and who sincerely was mistaken.
Slon wrote:I already wrote, that I admit, that Uuttu have hit in Pokryshev's plane (or someone another). And it is very probable, that you are right. On extremely measure, any logic contradiction in it is not present.
But your confidence of your correctness at me is not present. First of all because I cannot accept your point of view about a notorious insinuation of fighting report Shinkarenko.
I find Shinkarenko and Pokryshev not completely honest at what they have written.
Both have written about the truth, but not the whole truth.

Regards, Juha


P.S. the Uuttu Bulldog was left at Soviet hands, do you know did the Soviet evacuate it?
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Finland
 
Posts: 9992
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

Postby Slon-76 on 19 May 2009 21:13

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:But now it is not so important: we know place Pokryshev's of landing.
Do you know the exact swamp there?


If to look under the Soviet description - most likely Kuuritsansuo, between Kekrola and Raikkyla

Juha Tompuri wrote:A sidenote: lucky for Pokryshev, there were Finnish troops at Kekrola just a day earlier.


Not last time... ;)

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon wrote:Fight above Ruokolahti went 6-8 minutes!
Irrelevant.


Again the Soviet documents tell lies? What your version?
From words of mister Stennman Osasto Luukkanen documents were not kept.
What I ment was that it is here irrelevant how long an another aerial combat lasted.

So in the report it is specified. And on the Finnish data how many? If under applications on damaged to look - a minimum of 20 minutes.

Juha Tompuri wrote:P.S. the Uuttu Bulldog was left at Soviet hands, do you know did the Soviet evacuate it?


I do not know. As a trophy one has got to the Soviet armies only D.XXI and some ruins.

Regards
User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Russian Federation
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Previous

Return to Winter War & Continuation War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests