Finnish Air Force claims and losses (fighter squadrons)

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Slon-76 » 29 Apr 2009 20:50

Juha Tompuri wrote: 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?)
It Grigor'ev. There is nobody more. Here an extract from the Fighting report 7 иап for 30.11.39:
Во время выхода из атаки из района станции Саккола звено (И-15бис 7 иап) было обстреляно зенитной артиллерией. Один из ведомых стал резко набирать высоту и вошел в облачность. Командир звена сделал несколько кругов над местом отрыва одного летчика, но безрезультатно. Младший лейтенант Григорьев на аэродром не вернулся.
Juha Tompuri wrote: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
I think, that it is two I-15bis from 31 VRAE(an army recon squadron). Were missing 06.02.40

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11563
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Apr 2009 21:04

Slon-76 wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote: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. ;)
Bruun book mentiones at that battle: Sihvo a SB-2 smoking, Puhakka I-16 down, I-15 smoking, Nieminen I-16 smoking, Linnamaa DB-3 smoking.
At book Parolasta Pyhäniemeen by Ahti Saarinen there are the relevant Puhakka flight log book pages, but there they are so fuzzy that it's very difficult to say anything exact about that battle details.



Slon-76 wrote: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).
According to SIH 27 Porvari seemed to have clamed damaging the Soviet plane.
Seems that because of the "over efficient" Finnish intelligence, the later Soviet loss was found out and added to Porvari?
Also interesting seems to be the efficiency of the Finnish infantry AA fire - as there really was quite little "real" Finnish AAA.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Slon-76 » 29 Apr 2009 21:18

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote: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).
According to SIH 27 Porvari seemed to have clamed damaging the Soviet plane.
In documents 26 IAP this fight is very well described. Porvari has fired at a fighter which has pursued Berg's "Bulldog". He probably including in dive I-16 also has accepted for shot down. The ambassador he has been attacked several I-16 and could not track the purpose.
Juha Tompuri wrote:Seems that because of the "over efficient" Finnish intelligence, the later Soviet loss was found out and added to Porvari?
Also interesting seems to be the efficiency of the Finnish infantry AA fire - as there really was quite little "real" Finnish AAA.
In general, the Soviet side, it is especial in second half of war, estimated Finnish air defence as much more serious opponent, than the Air Forces. Probably It can seem strange, but it so.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11563
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Apr 2009 21:44

Slon-76 wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote: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. ;)
Have to check, but I don't remember any claims of Kotka (very weak) air defence (at that day).

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Slon-76 » 29 Apr 2009 21:52

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. ;)
Have to check, but I don't remember any claims of Kotka (very weak) air defence (at that day).
Above Kotka strong antiaircraft fire was marked. However, both planes have fallen rather far from Kotka, therefore could and not include.

Regards

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 15:32
Location: Paris

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by VG 33 » 30 Apr 2009 10:45

Hello Juha


Welcome to the Forum.
Thank you, it is a pleasure: j shall congratulate you because of the turn than your debate with Slon takes on, without chauvinists threads from both sides :wink:


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.
Look Juha, we are all practicing global english, wich is a kind of joke on oxford real/ sheakerspeare language.
But there is nothing to speculate about. I only made a calculation, a division in fact. No speculation.

And maintain my adjective. J know what i'm talking about. Overclaim existed everyware and anytime. It was about 1.5-2 for french pilots in 1940, 2-2.5 for british and approx 3,1415927 (~ Pi) for german ones!
But 5.4-13,5 is an astonishing one, compared on that (1.5) for bombers.
There is no mean that finish or other pilots were liers. Some of them were of coarse, but the bulk of them, submitted to heavy g-forces, shacked by infernal manoeuveres in dogfight, turning the head and plane in all sides, in order to survive or kill had no time and no possibility to fellow their real or supposed victims. Once more, all fighter planes of the mid-30ies were extremely nimble and weakly armed on the same time. Difficult to achieve another fighter in that conditions. It was the same picture in Spain, China, Nomonhan...



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.
Yes, but i was saying (wrighting) nothing else...

Some of them 8 I-153, 1 I-16, 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).
Ok, but wich one? The I-16?


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.
Admit, that is a not serious job, even fantasy.

**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?
Shall i justify to call "dog" a dog? This is the terminology used in other forums in order to avoïd confusion between the different kinds of verification. But do you want us to use other worlds. We are all using awfull mondial-global english, so in order to speak about the same thing, it's better to use precise terms.
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.
Why not?

We can also definite different cases of aerial victories

- 1 pilot killed, plane crashed directly on the combat aera
- 1a pilot bailed out, plane crashed on the combat aera
- 1b pilot wonded, plane made a emergency landing on the combat aera
...
- 2 plane damaged, retired from the fight, crashed on the way tu return on ennemy side (abc pilot killed, wouded...etc)
- 3 plane damaged, retired from the fight, crashed on it's side (abc...)
- 4 plane damager, retired from the fight, crashed on it's own base, pilot killed, wounded

- 5 plane damaged, made a emergency landing on the ennemy side

etc...xxx- plane damaged, returned to it's base safely, pilot ok but plane written off due to combat damages


This is an important choice, most of the fights are taking place on the finish side, chances to save pilot's or planes were bigger.

Best Regards

Claude VG-33
Last edited by VG 33 on 30 Apr 2009 13:21, edited 1 time in total.

ML
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 08:34
Location: Finland

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by ML » 30 Apr 2009 10:48

Have to check, but I don't remember any claims of Kotka (very weak) air defence (at that day).
In addition to regular AA-units (if there were any at all in Kotka), heavy coastal guns of Rankki were also used extensively in AA-duties during Winter War. There are some descriptions about this in book "Talvisodan jäinen loppunäytös" by Tiilikainen & Pusa.

Kirkonmaa fort also got during Winter War some old Pom-Pom AA-guns, but they were found pretty useless for anything.

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 15:32
Location: Paris

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by VG 33 » 30 Apr 2009 11:31

Hello Slon,
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.
I understand, maybe Mikhail used updates datas.

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.
It's my opinion too. As a graduated MAI engeener is got a very high general and technical level. But he does not like operational side.
In France, we have got his translated book on I-16. No bad at all.
http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article18.html

He perfectly explains dive-recovery problems of the I-16 in 1939, by official trials. This plane encoutered the same aerodynamical problems in Spain (Patrick Loreau enquest on some republican or nationalist pilots). I think technical problems were numerous on soviet-made planes, that lead to nomerous losses in turn, without any opposition or fight from the other side.

And this one, with Stenman works inside. A real bullshit
http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article17.html

It's difficult to find books on russian/soviet side in Paris. We can always ask to the "Polish Plumber" to bring them from Russia, but the choice is limited and we have to overpay him a lot (5-7 times!).


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! :)
Don't worry, there is no new Shakespeare here...Sorry guys, i have red a lot of messages here.


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.
On russian side?


02/02/40 (Berg, LLv 26) -1
It was I-153
Whow 8O !!
Do you mean he took an I-16 for an I-153.
He used Kriska- Finlandia two much! :lol:
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
Thanks a lot Slone. For me.

But for the others, have you got enough materials to publish something about that in the west (france-spain, belgium in fact)? Or shall we wait a little more.
Have you been contacted from an editor?

Wishfully thinking!
Look at your MP

Claude

VG-33

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11563
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Apr 2009 19:48

VG 33 wrote: I only made a calculation, a division in fact. No speculation.
This I call speculation with bad sources:
VG 33 wrote: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.
VG 33 wrote: And maintain my adjective. J know what i'm talking about.
----------------
But 5.4-13,5 is an astonishing one, compared on that (1.5) for bombers.
As above.
VG 33 wrote:
Some of them 8 I-153, 1 I-16, 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).
Ok, but wich one? The I-16?
Hard to say exact as there seems to be very little info about the captured planes, but at least couple of Soviet bombers were captured because of the Finnish fighter action.

VG 33 wrote:
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.
Admit, that is a not serious job, even fantasy.
Hard to say without reading the book.
Usually the info from the Stenman works I have read has been OK.
VG 33 wrote:
**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?
Shall i justify to call "dog" a dog? This is the terminology used in other forums in order to avoïd confusion between the different kinds of verification.
The rules at this Furum just happen to be such that if one makes a claim, he should be able to verify it.
VG 33 wrote: But do you want us to use other worlds.
No, just trying to clear up things here.
VG 33 wrote: it's better to use precise terms.
I agree.

VG 33 wrote: This is an important choice, most of the fights are taking place on the finish side, chances to save pilot's or planes were bigger.
Yes, why to come at the wrong side of the border at all?

Best Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11563
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Apr 2009 20:03

VG 33 wrote:
02/02/40 (Berg, LLv 26) -1
It was I-153
Whow 8O !!
Do you mean he took an I-16 for an I-153.
No.
VG 33 wrote:He used Kriska- Finlandia two much! :lol:
See above.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11563
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Apr 2009 21:45

ML wrote:
Have to check, but I don't remember any claims of Kotka (very weak) air defence (at that day).
In addition to regular AA-units (if there were any at all in Kotka), heavy coastal guns of Rankki were also used extensively in AA-duties during Winter War. There are some descriptions about this in book "Talvisodan jäinen loppunäytös" by Tiilikainen & Pusa.

Kirkonmaa fort also got during Winter War some old Pom-Pom AA-guns, but they were found pretty useless for anything.
I've read the book too, pretty good one, well written.
Yes, the coastal artilley at the islands had some sort of AAA, AFAIK he heaviest in the beginning being the WWI era 37mm water cooled, belt fed Maxim pom-poms http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AA_GUNS2.htm
Later they got some 40mm Bofors ones.

Yes, Rankki coastal artillery (5x 152mm Canet) claimed some success against aerial targets using the 152mm time-fuzed ammo.

According to "Suomen Ilmatorjunnan vaiheita 1925-1960" (About Finish AA-defence 1925-1960) there is a mention that at Winter War the was a light jaos (40mm section?) = 2x40mm Bofors? at Kotka
+ AA mg's?
Also some 20mm guns North of Kotka, at Karhula.

Later at Continuation War there were more guns there:
http://www.bellabs.ru/51/Photos/Niobe_Kotka_AAA.html


Regards, Juha

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008 16:56
Location: Moscow

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by Slon-76 » 02 May 2009 10:14

VG 33 wrote: 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!*
Nevertheless their six.
Let's make hardly more in detail.

23.12.39
4/68 IAP
The plane during air fight has lagged behind from building squadrons. Has not returned back. The plane had number 228, on the Finnish data on this plane two shot at least: Pyotsia and Nissinen. It is possible to speak confidently, that this plane has been shot down in air I fight.

23/12/39
4/ 7 IAP Grigorjev
The commander of a squadron personally saw, how this plane was shot by two "Fokkers"

23/12/39
4/7 IAP Zolotarjev
This fighter has not returned after air fight. Under the certificate of some participants of fight, one I-16 has collided two-engined plane of the opponent. Probably, it was one of brought down in the same place the Finnish fighters SB 44 sbap. As a whole speaking, this fighter - disputable. But I think, that it will be fair to give its Finnish fighters nevertheless.

01/02/40
The plane has come in "corkscrew" during fight and has disappeared in clouds.

02/02/40
The plane has been seized by Finns after fight with Tuominen. As it has taken place anybody from the Soviet side did not see. However, Tuominen has left the detailed description of fight.

29/02/40
That there was with the pilot has noticed nobody. Finns approve, that the plane has been brought down in air I fight. Probably, so it also is.
VG 33 wrote: 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? 8O
I think, that it will be more correct nevertheless 5-6 to 25... I.e. on fighters (- 3 Blenheims) it will be all too a parity of 3-4 declared victories over one real. As a whole of anything especially surprising.
VG 33 wrote: 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?

As a whole is not present. The destiny of the majority from MIA fighters with the help of the bilateral data already managed to be established.

VG 33 wrote: 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?
It is the good book " for beginning ", giving representation about the Finnish sight at a subject. I so understand, what it SIH 17? Well and is relative 64 IAP - this mistake not the first year "wanders" under the Finnish books, but in last Stenman’s and Keskinen’s works it is already corrected.

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 15:32
Location: Paris

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by VG 33 » 02 May 2009 11:55

Hello Juha


VG 33 wrote: This is an important choice, most of the fights are taking place on the finish side, chances to save pilot's or planes were bigger.
Yes, why to come at the wrong side of the border at all?
Well, well; of course I am against dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco etc. and for the respect of human and international rights, and boarders. I appreciate Finish courage and fighting spirit . Anyway, this is not a political forum and once those banalities left, I will remain neutral on comptability aspects.

VG 33 wrote: I only made a calculation, a division in fact. No speculation.
This I call speculation with bad sources:
Do you mean slon 76 sources are bad?
So why?
Have you got better sources?



Ok, but wich one? The I-16?
Hard to say exact as there seems to be very little info about the captured planes, but at least couple of Soviet bombers were captured because of the Finnish fighter action.
Might be. Bombers in general are outside of my circle of interests. But if you'v got something new about I-16, MS 406, H-75, C-714, Hurricne it would be with pleasure :) !


Admit, that is a not serious job, even fantasy.
Hard to say without reading the book.
I have only red the French version, hard to say how is it looks like in suoumi language.
Usually the info from the Stenman works I have read has been OK.
For finish aviation certainly, I can’t say. :|
But for soviet? :?
Harri: According to a recent mutual research total Soviet combat losses would have been at least about 579 destroyed aircraft .
Did he published the complete list of this soviet losses?

VG 33 wrote: it's better to use precise terms.
I agree.
100%




Best Regards,


VG-33

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 15:32
Location: Paris

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by VG 33 » 02 May 2009 14:31

Hello Slon

S praznicom 1 maya!

You say that in russian, no :D ?

Nevertheless their six.
Let's make hardly more in detail.
23.12.39
4/68 IAP

23/12/39
4/ 7 IAP Grigorjev

23/12/39
4/7 IAP Zolotarjev
As a whole speaking, this fighter - disputable. But I think, that it will be fair to give its Finnish fighters nevertheless.
As if you want...

01/02/40
The plane has come in "corkscrew" during fight and has disappeared in clouds.
You mean "flat spin", "ploski chtopor" or something like that?

02/02/40
The plane has been seized by Finns after fight with Tuominen.
So we can validate his victory?

29/02/40
VG 33 wrote: 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? 8O
I think, that it will be more correct nevertheless 5-6 to 25... I.e. on fighters (- 3 Blenheims) it will be all too a parity of 3-4 declared victories over one real. As a whole of anything especially surprising.
No scoop. Actually a distressing banality situation. Overclaim in Spain was something little higher.

VG 33 wrote: 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?
As a whole is not present. The destiny of the majority from MIA fighters with the help of the bilateral data already managed to be established.
I see: no more hope for ilmavoïmat supporters until you'ill find some new losses from the soviet side?

VG 33 wrote: 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


It is the good book " for beginning ", giving representation about the Finnish sight at a subject. I so understand, what it SIH 17? Well and is relative 64 IAP - this mistake not the first year "wanders" under the Finnish books, but in last Stenman’s and Keskinen’s works it is already corrected.
Well, i'm not fluent in russian:

Однако недавно опубликованные российскими исто­риками данные существенно отлича­ются: потери составили 579 самоле­тов, что хорошо коррелирует с фин­скими данными о потерях ВВС РККА в Зимней войне - 521 самолет.

Either

According to a recent mutual research total Soviet combat losses would have been at least about 579 destroyed aircraft .
wich is accuratly correlating with finish data of VVS RKKA losses in Winter War - 521 planes.


Have you got such a powerfull databate :wink: of soviet losses as Keskinnen, Stenman's one?

Best Regards

VG 33
Last edited by VG 33 on 02 May 2009 14:51, edited 1 time in total.

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 15:32
Location: Paris

Re: Finnish Air Force claims and lossess (fighter squadrons)

Post by VG 33 » 02 May 2009 14:46

Whow 8O !!
Do you mean he took an I-16 for an I-153.
No.
VG 33 wrote:He used Kriska- Finlandia two much! :lol:
See above.[/quote]

It was a joke. Keep kool, man...and drink fresh! 8-)

I lake kriska too, never taste Finlandia. Hope on you to send me a bottle :lol:

Bye

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”