Finnish Air Force claims and losses (fighter squadrons)

[Juha Tompuri]

.

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?

No.
Yours.

Have you got better sources?

Some.

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 !

Captured planes have a thread of their own.
Check there. Something new might appear there some day.

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.

I think the data remains the same even if translated.

Usually the info from the Stenman works I have read has been OK.

For finish aviation certainly, I can’t say.
But for soviet?

Depending on sources used, quite OK I would say.

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?

Who?
Harri, Stenman or Keskinen?

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

100%

Thanks, so you can start that by revealing the source of your "global english" claim, already asked before:

**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, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Whow !!
Do you mean he took an I-16 for an I-153.

No.

He used Kriska- Finlandia two much!

See above.

It was a joke.

Sources and humour seem not to be your strong points.

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

VG 33 wrote:

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 of soviet losses as Keskinnen, Stenman's one?

Here authors were, certainly, are not absolutely correct. As the figure of the general losses of Air Forces RKKA is compared to the data on victories of the Air Forces and air defence of Finland. From this text it is possible to draw a conclusion, that ALL requirements of the Finnish party - are proved. However, it is obvious that not so. Figures сannot "correlate" with each other. As on the one hand the question is fighting losses (the application of the Finnish side), and with another - about the GENERAL losses, including not fighting (about 45-50 %).

[Juha Tompuri]

losses of Air Forces RKKA

Does that also include the Navies etc "separate" Air Forces/unit losses?

As the figure of the general losses of Air Forces RKKA is compared to the data on victories of the Air Forces and air defence of Finland.

+ Navy.
Isn't that exactly as it should be done?

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

losses of Air Forces RKKA

Does that also include the Navies etc "separate" Air Forces/unit losses?

This question should be addressed to the one who has deduced this figure (579 planes). I think, that was not present, as otherwise this figure will be strongly underestimated.

As the figure of the general losses of Air Forces RKKA is compared to the data on victories of the Air Forces and air defence of Finland.

+ Navy.
Isn't that exactly as it should be done?

My translator has not coped with your question
In any case, concrete figures in this case not so are important. I spoke about perversity of such statement of a question in general.

Regards,

[Juha Tompuri]

losses of Air Forces RKKA

Does that also include the Navies etc "separate" Air Forces/unit losses?

This question should be addressed to the one who has deduced this figure (579 planes). I think, that was not present, as otherwise this figure will be strongly underestimated.

Aha, I think this discussion would need a thread of it's own here.

As the figure of the general losses of Air Forces RKKA is compared to the data on victories of the Air Forces and air defence of Finland.

+ Navy.
Isn't that exactly as it should be done?

My translator has not coped with your question

I ment that the list seemed to not include the Navy shot down planes and I find it quite OK to compare the total Soviet losses to the ones that were responsible to them.

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

Aha, I think this discussion would need a thread of it's own here.

As you here- Forum Staff, that to you, as at us speak, " and cards in hands ".

Regards,

[Juha Tompuri]

As you here- Forum Staff, that to you, as at us speak, " and cards in hands ".

I really don't mind if you would start here a thread of the Soviet losses and/or claims.

Regards, Juha

[VG 33]

.

Do you mean slon 76 sources are bad?

No.
Yours.

I used slon 76 and antero 59 sources.
But, what can you tell about my sources?

Have you got better sources?

Some.

So, share them.

Captured planes have a thread of their own.
Check there. Something new might appear there some day.

I will

I think the data remains the same even if translated.

Probably, but is doesn't mean that used data are true.

But for soviet? Depending on sources used, quite OK I would say.

What used sources are OK, "that you would say"?

Who? Harri, Stenman or Keskinen?

All of them.

A validated kill, a kill verified by the archives of the other side.

And so what, something is wrong with this terminology?




Best Regards, VG 33

[VG 33]

VG 33 wrote:

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.

Here authors were, certainly, are not absolutely correct. As the figure of the general losses of Air Forces RKKA is compared to the data on victories of the Air Forces and air defence of Finland. From this text it is possible to draw a conclusion, that ALL requirements of the Finnish party - are proved.

I don't totally agree. You can have 521 finish claim and 579 (supposingly) soviet combat losses wihout any correlation at all for a lot of them. You need for that to make (estabish in fact) correspondance with kinds of plane, on same days, same places (aeras).

However, it is obvious that not so. Figures сannot "correlate" with each other. As on the one hand the question is fighting losses (the application of the Finnish side), and with another - about the GENERAL losses, including not fighting (about 45-50 %).

What do you think about W Kondratiev works:
Посмотрим теперь, как подобные цифры сочетаются с реальными данными. Согласно отчетам авиаполков, журналам боевых действий и ежедневным донесениям, за все время войны ВВС РККА потеряли 224 самолета сбитыми или совершившими вынужденные посадки за линией фронта. Еще 86 числятся пропавшими без вести и 181 проходит по графе «погибло и повреждено в авариях и катастрофах» (небоевые потери). Последней цифры мы пока касаться не будем, ибо ясно, что к этим потерям финская авиация никакого отношения не имеет. Боевые потери авиации Балтфлота составляли 17 машин, небоевые - 46. ВВС Северного флота закончили войну без потерь.

So, by war diaries and internal documents, during the whole war VVS RKKA lost 224 plane shooted down or forced landed on the other side. 86 more are considered as "missed on mission" and 181 others destroyed and damaged in accidents.
17 planes on combat for fleet and 46 for other reasons.

It was published before 2000, so it's probably not update figures. And i'm not shure about my translation.

Do you think that 579 could be Shumikhin, overall losses, but of them 261 for combat reasons. Or something like that?


Best regards VG 33

[Slon-76]

What do you think about W Kondratiev works:
Посмотрим теперь, как подобные цифры сочетаются с реальными данными. Согласно отчетам авиаполков, журналам боевых действий и ежедневным донесениям, за все время войны ВВС РККА потеряли 224 самолета сбитыми или совершившими вынужденные посадки за линией фронта. Еще 86 числятся пропавшими без вести и 181 проходит по графе «погибло и повреждено в авариях и катастрофах» (небоевые потери). Последней цифры мы пока касаться не будем, ибо ясно, что к этим потерям финская авиация никакого отношения не имеет. Боевые потери авиации Балтфлота составляли 17 машин, небоевые - 46. ВВС Северного флота закончили войну без потерь.

So, by war diaries and internal documents, during the whole war VVS RKKA lost 224 plane shooted down or forced landed on the other side. 86 more are considered as "missed on mission" and 181 others destroyed and damaged in accidents.
17 planes on combat for fleet and 46 for other reasons.

It was published before 2000, so it's probably not update figures. And i'm not shure about my translation.

Do you think that 579 could be Shumikhin, overall losses, but of them 261 for combat reasons. Or something like that?

W Kondratiev used the data which were calculated by Paul Aptekar. I very skeptically concern to these figures. In these calculations set of mistakes and the doubtful data. I somehow wrote about it.
http://www.winterwar.ru/apt.htm
Losses of fleet - in general full nonsense. Actually it only irrevocable losses from fighters of the opponent + noncombat losses according to staff Baltic fleet. According to last Russian researches (P.V.Petrov) of loss of the Air Forces of fleet have made 89 planes.
Shumihin used the final Soviet data according to which, fighting losses of Air Forces RKKA (without fleet) have made 269 planes, not fighting - 136. By the way to tell, as far as I know, up to him nobody published these data, therefore the "ofisial posted" losses of the Soviet Air Forces most likely simply did not exist.
Unfortunately, the the level of the reporting was higher, the figures of losses were more strongly reduced. For example, under the report of associations of Air Forces RKKA (armies, front, a special air brigade), fighting losses reached 309 planes.
In general, this theme still waits for the researcher. Basically, I have full enough given about losses of Air Forces RKKA but while I am lazy to reduce together all figures. All this very laborious and scrupulous work.
Besides still there are questions on which I have not found answers. The destiny of emergency machines (they are written off in a result or are repaired) is not always clear. Not clearly, how to be with the planes which have been written off " because of deterioration " after war. Thus Air Forces RKKA got rid of absolutely out-of-date machines.

[VG 33]

Thank you,

I was told about your posts in 2003 at a russian forum by my friend Oleg S. soon. He will translate me next week.
So you are searching in russian archives since a long time ! AFAI undersand, soviet losses database is about to be complete now. Some further reacherches will led to a big waste of time for a logarithmical grow of the databse. No?

Thus Air Forces RKKA got rid of absolutely out-of-date machines.

It seems to be classical in USSR, on that time. Do you know something about Vorochilov order to write off planes produiced before 37 during WW?

Well, this is not urgent... I'v got all my replys.

Wish you some rest ang good WE!

Best Regards

[Juha Tompuri]

.

Do you mean slon 76 sources are bad?

No.
Yours.

I used slon 76 and antero 59 sources.
But, what can you tell about my sources?

I let Slon answer:

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.

W Kondratiev used the data which were calculated by Paul Aptekar. I very skeptically concern to these figures. In these calculations set of mistakes and the doubtful data.
--------------------------
Losses of fleet - in general full nonsense

Have you got better sources?

Some.

So, share them.

Already done.

But for soviet? Depending on sources used, quite OK I would say.

What used sources are OK, "that you would say"?

Finnish archives for example.

Who? Harri, Stenman or Keskinen?

All of them.

Did he published the complete list of this soviet losses?

?
AFAIK Harri hasn't published anything (having a very good website though) Keskinen as well as Stenman Have pulished two books with list of claimed/shot down Soviet planes, but they haven't published lists of the AAA and Navy successes.

A validated kill, a kill verified by the archives of the other side.

And so what, something is wrong with this terminology?

Too much depends on the state of the archives at different countries.
Also the lack of the source of your claim.
It begins to look like that there is none.


Best Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Losses of fleet - in general full nonsense. Actually it only irrevocable losses from fighters of the opponent + noncombat losses according to staff Baltic fleet. According to last Russian researches (P.V.Petrov) of loss of the Air Forces of fleet have made 89 planes.

The info of 17 planes lost seems to originate from Commander of the Soviet Naval Aviation Komdiv S.F. Zhavoronkov report 100440.

Geust-Tirkeltaub-Petrov Red Stars 5 mentions as:

VVS KBF:
30 combat losses
12 MIA
55 accidents
_______
97 plane total losses.


Special Aviation Group (OAG):
27 combat losses
1 MIA
12 accidents
___________
40 plane total losses

Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

Geust-Tirkeltaub-Petrov Red Stars 5 mentions as:
VVS KBF:
30 combat losses
12 MIA
55 accidents
_______
97 plane total losses.

I do not know, what from the data correct (the archive of fleet is in the other city... ), therefore have resulted the last on time.
However, serious divergences only on combat losses (30 and 20 accordingly)
Though it will be necessary to compare the data Petrov's and RS 5 to archival documents available at me on fleet.

Regards