Finnish Air Force claims and losses (fighter squadrons)

[Juha Tompuri]

At the list of losses of the Soviet fighters in fights with the Finnish fighters according to the Soviet/Russian(?) info, you have posted 15 planes.
The original claim of yours was that Finns had overclaimed 4-5 times = 60-75 claims
Then you corrected the ratio being 3-4 times = 45-60 claims
Are you still sure about the ratio?

Why not?
It agrees SIH 26-27 Finnish pilots it is declared shot down (T and Е):
23 I-16 (16 T + 7 E)
8 I-153 (all T)
9 I-15bis (6 T + 3 E)
+ 3 I-15bis F19

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1320860
= in total 43.

I made a quick check at the books mentioned and found there all the cases you mentioned, exept only one E claim over I-15bis planes (Tuominen 130240).
Could you point out the lacking two ones you mean?

Finnish claim types:
T = witnessed by outsiders
E = confirmed by the HQ without witness
R = confirmed into wing's account
V = damaged

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

= in total 43.

+ 5 Blenheims
- 2 I-15bis

I made a quick check at the books mentioned and found there all the cases you mentioned, exept only one E claim over I-15bis planes (Tuominen 130240).
Could you point out the lacking two ones you mean?

I can. This right and left hemispheres of my brain.
I have table made on these books, and there at lieutenant Ulrich 130240 instead of 2 SB is written down 2 I-15bis. My mistake.
I.e. the parity of declared / real victories will be approximately 3/1


Regards,

[mirekw]

1. What criterion of damages of the plane, that it became "victory"? Or any damage is "victory"?
2. (...) Only it is not necessary to speak, that ALL Soviet documents lie.
(…)
3. I with interest would esteem your work on fight 29.02.40. Your conclusions are extremely interesting to me. Why Finns have sufferred such severe defeat? I am confident, that you have found to this phenomenon a worthy explanation

Ad 1.) I think that in my last post I have explained the case of claim, victory, destroyed planes
I see that it was not clear for you, maybe my wrong English
Sorry, but I am not a God.
This mean I do not have such power to make correction to official credited victories by any army officers. So when they credited such victory to a fighter pilot it is his success.
According my attitude I think that the victory is then when the plane did not return to own base and force-landed somewhere. Later such plane could be repaired too, I am not so tight strict,as for example Marius Emmerling (he is specialist about Luftwafe over Poland IX 39), who believes that only planes with damages more then 60% on German side could be count as a victory (it is mean destroyed and only written off plane). It is easy for Lufftwaffe plane and not so easy for other nations.

I put in my materials information about claims and real losses of both side (destroyed, damages, plus KIA, WIA, MIA). Further reducing the victory tally is pointless as for me and it is not possible to find real victor from the battle. The outcome of war is well knows for many years. It is important for me to present claims and real losses of both sides.
I hope just should be it is clear.

Ad.2 ) I do not say that Soviet documents lie. There is some kind information valuable but some of them are not true. Lie it is not the same as not true. Always it is needed to check it with opposite side.

Ad3) I have written a few materials about Winter War printed in Poland and these materials are written only in Polish. Probably you will have near "zero" value because you do not read Polish. The information about this defeat (29.02.40) are given with both side losses etc. This is story is no 3 in below list.
And If you are interested in it OK, I can send you but could be nice to see your material about Winter War too? If you have such?

1. Hurricane with Blue Swastica. Huragan z błękitną swastyką, p. 10, 13 b&w + 4 color photos, 5 colour drawings, 44.436 signes, [in:] Militaria XX wieku 3(18)/2007.
2. Soviets over Finalnd 25-30 June 1941. Sowieci nad Finlandią 25-30 czerwca 1941 roku, p. 14, (23 b&w, 4 colours of G.50s: FA-11 of 3./LLv 26, B.239 2xBW-352 of 2./LLv 26, D.XXI FR-116 of 1./LLv 32, 68.798 signes, [in:] Militaria XX wieku 6(15)/2006.
3. The Defeat of Galadiators. Klęska Gladiatorów, p. 7 (13 b&w photos, 2 color drawings of D.XXI FR-108 and Gloster Gladiator II GL-263), 31.800 signes, [in:] Militaria XX wieku 3 (12)/2006.
4. Brewster Model 239 (F2A-1) versus Hawker Hurricane Mark II, Brewster Model 239 (F2A-1) kontra Hawker Hurricane Mark II, p. 7, 14 b&w photos, 4 color sides (Berwster Model 239 “BW-372” of 2./LeLv 24 and BW-364 “Orange 4” of 3/LeLv 24; 2 Hurricanes II: Z2585, “white 42” of 760. IAP and Z3577 of 769. IAP of 122. IAD PVO), 30.000 signes, [in:] Militaria XX wieku 6 (9)/2005.
5. In Four Minutes Six Bombers (Sarvanto’s victories in Winter War). W cztery minuty sześć bombowców, p. 2, 3 b&w photos, 1 color (Fokker D.XXI), [in:] Militaria XX wieku 4 (7)/2005.

If you such expert on the Soviet documents, then should know what to hide loss basically very difficultly. At work with documents of different "departments", such "cunnings" are easily calculated. Also forgive, but I strongly doubt, that you saw many the Soviet documents on Winter war.

I do not say that I have seen plenty document for Winter War, I can say that I have seen many/plenty document produced in Soviet also in army or aviation. Some of them are used in my book printed in Poland about “Red Stars Black Cross Ally over Poland. Soviet Aviation in Invasion on Poland IX-X 1939” - printed last year IX 2008 in Poland. More info about it is http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=1990

I know Soviet materials too, but of course you are better in Soviet document about Winter War then me it is obvious. Anyway for about 2 years I have focused on other subjects not related to Winter War (like Soviet aviation over Poland in IX-X 1939).

Thanks for some correction about statistic of fighter losses. Interesting comparing data.

Regards
MW

BTW.
My mail is: [email protected]

[Juha Tompuri]

= in total 43.

+ 5 Blenheims
- 2 I-15bis

As this is supposed to be fighter versus fighter discussion, only -2 I-15bis

This right and left hemispheres of my brain.
I have table made on these books, and there at lieutenant Ulrich 130240 instead of 2 SB is written down 2 I-15bis. My mistake.

As Mirek wrote:

Sorry, but I am not a God

As far as I know, no-one here is.
Errare humanum est.

I.e. the parity of declared / real victories will be approximately 3/1

Hard to say the absolute truth yet.
I'll tend to think that the ratio is lower.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Thank you.

= in total 43.

+ 5 Blenheims
- 2 I-15bis

As this is supposed to be fighter versus fighter discussion, only -2 I-15bis

This right and left hemispheres of my brain.
I have table made on these books, and there at lieutenant Ulrich 130240 instead of 2 SB is written down 2 I-15bis. My mistake.

As Mirek wrote:

Sorry, but I am not a God

As far as I know, no-one here is.
Errare humanum est.

I.e. the parity of declared / real victories will be approximately 3/1

Hard to say the absolute truth yet.
I'll tend to think that the ratio is lower.

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

1. What criterion of damages of the plane, that it became "victory"? Or any damage is "victory"?
2. (...) Only it is not necessary to speak, that ALL Soviet documents lie.
(…)
3. I with interest would esteem your work on fight 29.02.40. Your conclusions are extremely interesting to me. Why Finns have sufferred such severe defeat? I am confident, that you have found to this phenomenon a worthy explanation

Ad 1.) I think that in my last post I have explained the case of claim, victory, destroyed planes
I see that it was not clear for you, maybe my wrong English
Sorry, but I am not a God.
This mean I do not have such power to make correction to official credited victories by any army officers. So when they credited such victory to a fighter pilot it is his success.

I do not apply for change of personal accounts of pilots. In this sense I with you completely agree. However, I already spoke about it.

According my attitude I think that the victory is then when the plane did not return to own base and force-landed somewhere. Later such plane could be repaired too, I am not so tight strict,as for example Marius Emmerling (he is specialist about Luftwafe over Poland IX 39), who believes that only planes with damages more then 60% on German side could be count as a victory (it is mean destroyed and only written off plane). It is easy for Lufftwaffe plane and not so easy for other nations.

For this reason I do not want to deal with the damaged planes. In my opinion, the main criterion of objectivity - the equal approach to both parties. I know a degree of damage of the Soviet planes in many air fights with Finns. But I do not know it about the Finnish planes if only they have not been sent on repair in VL. Therefore I prefer to compare only with certainly destroyed planes.
Though I believe, it strongly I "offend" the Soviet party. If there were full data on the Finnish planes damaged in fights, think, some Soviet air fights would not seem " the collection overclaims ".

Ad.2 ) I do not say that Soviet documents lie. There is some kind information valuable but some of them are not true. Lie it is not the same as not true. Always it is needed to check it with opposite side.

In general I also am engaged in it... I check the Finnish victories the Soviet data and on the contrary.
Variants, that this or that meaningly / is irresponsibly deform I the sides underestimate loss otherwise examine only on the basis of serious proofs. While to me such did not come across (I have in view of documents of an operative level). And it allows me the basis to believe, that a total on losses of the Soviet Air Forces which I resulted earlier, are underestimated.

Ad3) I have written a few materials about Winter War printed in Poland and these materials are written only in Polish. Probably you will have near "zero" value because you do not read Polish. The information about this defeat (29.02.40) are given with both side losses etc. This is story is no 3 in below list.

Yes, alas, on Polish I do not read.

And If you are interested in it OK, I can send you but could be nice to see your material about Winter War too? If you have such?

Yes, it would be interesting to me
I, to tell the truth, not so " the big writer ". Time not always suffices. Therefore my list of publications is rather modest. I help the information to other authors more.
The list, nevertheless, is present.
1. "Stuka" on Finnish (about, squadrons LLv 10). Aviamaster. Number, to tell the truth, any more I do not remember. But this clause is in Internet.
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/fin ... pikir.html
2. Clause about supply of the surrounded Soviet parts by air in Winter war. It is published in " Military - historical magazine ", essential elements too I do not remember, but if it is necessary I can look.
3. " Pharmaceutical accuracy " (do not remember). Criticism of P.Aptekar's work.
http://www.winterwar.ru/apt.htm
4. Fighters I-16 in the Soviet - finnish war. Part 1 (the Karelian isthmus, December of 1939)/ the History of Aviation #32.
If the magazine "will live", I plan to let release 6-7 more parts. They, already, are written.

Thanks for some correction about statistic of fighter losses. Interesting comparing data. Well as you understand, that it - only the estimated data.

There is nothing.... As you understand, it only estimated data.

Regards

[Slon-76]

Thank you.

= in total 43.

+ 5 Blenheims
- 2 I-15bis

As this is supposed to be fighter versus fighter discussion, only -2 I-15bis

" You have caught me "
OK, Blenheims we throw out. Remains 41
And how to be with I-15bis, included Puhakka’s damaged? We leave it in the list of victories? Or we shall add to victories of the application on damaged and we shall divide a total sum?
" It is not important as vote, it is important as consider "
By the way, and how to be with victory Porvari of 27-th (or 25-th) December? On the different data this that a victory, damage? I did not count it

I.e. the parity of declared / real victories will be approximately 3/1

Hard to say the absolute truth yet.
I'll tend to think that the ratio is lower.

Probably, my arguments have not seemed to you convincing... The simple mathematics speaks that you are right. But six MIA in my list force to doubt....

Regards,

[VG 33]

Hello Slon 76

Thank you for your valuable information.

In his book "Istrebitel' I-15, Rusavia, Moscow" Mikhaïl Maslow quotes about soviet fighter losses in WW:

7 in aerial fights
15 shot by AA
51 missed "ne vernulis' - dit not return"

Total: 7+ 15 + 51 = 73 in combat

26 lost and 65 more damaged by accidents. This is for VVS RKKA

Total: 91 by accidents, but only a part of them (26) permanently, as much as i understand.

10-15 marine planes lost.

J'v got no other data for fighters.

So my question; did-he consider other losses that you call MIA (the 6 from the 15) in the "51 missed" category? Is-it possible to confirm, either infirm finish victories by correlating days and places of this 51 missed planes for unknown reasons with the illmavoïmat claims?

Best Regards

VG-33

[VG 33]

Hello Slon,


J would like to speak about


Polikarpov real I-16 losses vs FAF claims

Comparing your own table of losses and antero 59's one , i remark that only 1 claim from the LeLV 24 of the 23.12.39 plus another one from the 01.02.40 is verified in russian archives.
3 more planes lost after the arial battle on 23.12, 2 and 29.02, can be considered lost due to airfight dammages vith a high probability. But only probability of coarse , no fact!*

So the overclaim factor ranges from 2/27 (10 lelv 24, 13 lelv 26, 1 le 28, 3 blenheims) to 5/27 either 5,4-13.5.
Am i wrong for the polikarpov's Ishak?
Why such an astonishing overclaim for this particular plane?

On the other hand, some of the shooted planes by AA, if there was also airfights during the same mission can be only considered lost by ground fire with a high probability, no inssurance.

We can't state anything about the missed fighters for undefinite reasons off all kinds (51 in my sources). Some of them 8 I-153, 1 I-26, 5 I-15, captured in serviceable conditions and used by Finn's can hardly been considered as ilmavoïmat victories. (Either no, either insignificant ,dammage)
But some of the others could probably corresponding either to FAF, either to finish AA-ground claims.

In fact we are reducing the problem of the crosspointing two different databases. But as much as i understand the bulk off the missed planes was already been checked by some russian historians, and bring no more validation for finish claims**. Am-i wrong in that sense too?



And sorry Slon, once more question,i would like also your opinion about Stenman's Kekkinen work here, in russian

http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazin ... /21/01.htm

And what's the hell did they find losses from soviet air regiments wich in fact never participate, either never exist (64e IAP)?Have they been visiting RGAFD, either TsAMO just for one time?


* those planes could also have been shoted down by AA or grond troups on they way tu return, lost by technical or pilot faults, meteorology, shortage of fuel....

**in global english, we call confirmed kill or victory, a kill verified by the own side (he's proper troops or witnesses)of the pilot
A validated kill, a kill verified by the archives of the other side.

Best Regards,

VG-33

[mirekw]

Slon-76
Thanks for information, I do not have anything on a net.
Interesting your both texts, there are nice and good works!
If you want something you have to send me your private e-mail. Then I will send you.

Istria Aviatii, is a good magazine, I do not think it should disappeared from the market? If so would be similar situation like with Aviamaster, just now it is AviaPark o so, but edited not so often and in lower copies like first.
Anyway you have place for editing your interesting stories (Mir Aviatsii is second place I think), therea re aslo other aviation magazines in Russian (Aviatai i Kosmonavtika too, etc.). Keep it going,
It is not easy job but a lot of "pain + fun".

Regards,
mw

[Juha Tompuri]

" You have caught me "

noo... just fruits of succesful co-operation

And how to be with I-15bis, included Puhakka’s damaged?

The 260240?

" It is not important as vote, it is important as consider "

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
-J.S.-

By the way, and how to be with victory Porvari of 27-th (or 25-th) December? On the different data this that a victory, damage? I did not count it

I believe 25th (according to Bruun book Porvari shot one I-16 down, Berg damaged another)
SIH 12 mentions 40 SB-2 escorted by 20 I-16 bombed Käkisalmi (is the raid mentioned at Soviet sources?)
Same date but not the Berg hits.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

VG 33,

Welcome to the Forum.

Why such an astonishing overclaim for this particular plane?

I don't agree here with your speculation.
Speaking about "ashtonishing" I believe there were many greater candidates, some squadrons also mentioned at this thread.

We can't state anything about the missed fighters for undefinite reasons off all kinds (51 in my sources). Some of them 8 I-153, 1 I-26, 5 I-15, captured in serviceable conditions and used by Finn's

MIA to Soviet side is not same as the same planes being MIA to Finns.
The captured and several ones shot down at Finnish territory (or open water) and also those that were lost becuse of accidents were the MIA.

Some of them 8 I-153, 1 I-26, 5 I-15, captured in serviceable conditions and used by Finn's can hardly been considered as ilmavoïmat victories. (Either no, either insignificant ,dammage)

Some of them were results of aerial victories (and after that turned agaist their previous owners).

http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazin ... /21/01.htm

And what's the hell did they find losses from soviet air regiments wich in fact never participate, either never exist (64e IAP)?Have they been visiting RGAFD, either TsAMO just for one time?

They well might not have visited at the Russian archives at all, but just relying wrong information/people.
Anyway, seems to be a quite small typo/mistake.

**in global english, we call confirmed kill or victory, a kill verified by the own side (he's proper troops or witnesses)of the pilot
A validated kill, a kill verified by the archives of the other side.

Any source for that?

My personal opinion is that a aerial victory is an own plane forcing an enemy plane down (with guns or not) so that the enemy plane becomes written off from their inventory.

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

Hello Slon 76

Thank you for your valuable information.

In his book "Istrebitel' I-15, Rusavia, Moscow" Mikhaïl Maslow quotes about soviet fighter losses in WW:

7 in aerial fights
15 shot by AA
51 missed "ne vernulis' - dit not return"

Total: 7+ 15 + 51 = 73 in combat

26 lost and 65 more damaged by accidents. This is for VVS RKKA

Total: 91 by accidents, but only a part of them (26) permanently, as much as i understand.

10-15 marine planes lost.

J'v got no other data for fighters.

So my question; did-he consider other losses that you call MIA (the 6 from the 15) in the "51 missed" category?

Hello
I did not see this book (at me is, probably, earlier variant). Figures, however, absolutely not real! I do not know, whence he has taken them. Therefore it is difficult for me to make comments on these data.
Michael Maslov, certainly, the excellent expert on designs and histories of creation of the Soviet planes. But a history of fighting application - frankly weakness of his any book. It in my opinion.

Is-it possible to confirm, either infirm finish victories by correlating days and places of this 51 missed planes for unknown reasons with the illmavoïmat claims?

Yes, I can give the description of almost anyone fight of the Finnish Air Forces from the Soviet point of view.
If you, certainly, about it asked. Mine " the electronic translator " has badly coped with this question. On another I translate even worse!

Under the Finnish applications on I-15/I-152 (actually all - I-15bis) the situation is those:

27/12/39 (Pyotsia, LLv 24) -2
As I spoke, 1 fighter is lost. The second has been damaged and has made landing to ice of lake, whence has been then evacuated.

12/01/40 (Jakobi, F19) -1
The Soviet fighter has left fight because of refusal of machine guns. The Soviet fighter has left fight because of refusal of machine guns. It, by the way, was the only thing. In a tail of the plane after landing have found out four holes.
17/01/40 (Martin & Salwen, F19) -2
These victories "are frankly farfetched" on the basis of radiointerception. One of the "shot down" fighters was broke at flight to front because of a mistake of the pilot. The second - " has turned over through a nose " (at us it refers to скапотировал) at landing in the airbase. It have restored.
For the sake of justice I shall tell, that I do not know, whether Swedes had the attitude to this failure. The Soviet documents do not specify this moment. The place, at least, coincides.

02/02/40 (Berg, LLv 26) -1
It was I-153

13/02/40 (Joensuu & Tuominen, LLv 26) – 2
1 fighter is really shot down. By the description of fight, I think, that Joensuu have shot down a fighter which is compelled have landed in the Finnish territory. However then could fly up and has been finally destroyed Tuominen.

21/02/40 (Huhanantti, LLv 24) -1
Here I do not know what to tell. At that time in that area flied a little I-153 and I-16 7 IAP, but they even do not speak about fight. Especially about losses. In any case of losses of fighters this day was not in this area.

02/03/40 (Jutila & Reinikainen, LLv 28) -1
It was I-153

[Juha Tompuri]

Slon,

Do you happen to know answers from the Soviet era sources to two cases mentioned at RS5:

021239:

In the evening a crashed Soviet aircraft was found in Sakkola between Vilakkala and korvenkylä (10km West of Järisevä). There were no traces of the pilot, only some blood-stained maps and documents were found in the cockpit(This probably was a VVS fighter?)

060240:

Two (I-15bis?) fighters were sen crashing through the ice in the Bay of Viipuri between Tuppura and Ruonti. According to recovered doduments one fighter was piloted by Lt. K.S. Chumachenko, 7 IAP of VVs 7.A

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

And how to be with I-15bis, included Puhakka’s damaged?

The 260240?

Yes. Formally, to him the victory is not included. In general it has been lost in that flight two I-15bis. One more has made landing not having reached up to base. (gasoline was terminated, in fight tanks are punched). And both broken fighters, on the Soviet data, - are damaged by air defence above Kotka and broke at returning. Therefore Puhakka's victory is completely not unequivocal. Making the list, I nevertheless "accompanied" the Finnish side a little.

By the way, and how to be with victory Porvari of 27-th (or 25-th) December? On the different data this that a victory, damage? I did not count it

I believe 25th (according to Bruun book Porvari shot one I-16 down, Berg damaged another)
SIH 12 mentions 40 SB-2 escorted by 20 I-16 bombed (is the raid mentioned at Soviet sources?)
Same date but not the Berg hits.

I too think, that 25-th.
25.12.39 the strike of bombers was 24 SBAP on Them covered 24 I-16 26 IAP. During a start two fights with "Bulldogs" (the Soviet pilots have identified them as “Gamecock”) took place. Losses 26 IAP had no, has declared two victories.
But! After returning the commander of 54 air brigades has decided to attack the Finnish air station at Käkisalmi.
Have flied up 17 I-16 26 IAP, but because of overcast air station have not found. At returning above a front line fire from the ground had been shot down one I-16. (has fallen in Rahkajarvi).