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
Post Reply

mirekw
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Aug 2006, 16:57
Location: Poland/Central Europe

Re: Wrong calculation, only 2,1 to 1 ratio

#77

Post by mirekw » 15 Apr 2009, 18:22

Over claiming is not 3-4 but only 2,1!

I do not know from which sources Slon-76 had taken the figure of over claiming by Finns like 3-4 claimed Soviet fighters to their only 1 real, total lost?

Second I do not know, why Slon 76 simply is writing about 48 Finns credited victories over Soviet fighters (including F.19 unit, most of victories are claimed over bombers not over fighters – quite good matching ratio claims to confirmed vitories )?
It is very strange data and very high data!

I have count the figures of fighters claimed and credited by pilots of LeR 2. This regiment had 170 credited victories and it was Finns the first and the last fighter regiment fighting in WW There are only 34 credited victories over Soviet fighters like: I-16, I-153 and I-15 bis. So Finns over claiming ratio over Reds fighters is 2,26 to 1 but not 3-4 to 1.

If we taking Slon-76 data as a credible these given 15 victories = total lost fighters - do not know - and see too, that he has forgotten to add to his interesting data also losses of fighters from VVS VMF KBF (Baltic Fleet air units). Navy units had lost in combat against Finnish fighters one more I-153. So total losses were 16 fighters, which lowering over claiming rate to 2,1 for 1.

Slon-76 is making simple mathematical error in his calculation and also omitted other data from his calculation. So the ratio of over claiming is only 2,1 for 1 in land and navy fighter aviation, but not 3-4 as it wants to see Slon-76 in his calculation.


Regards,
Mirek Wawrzynski

The data are taken from:
1. Keskinen&Steman, “LeR 2”, Helsinki 2001, p. 123-125.
2. C-F Geust, “Red Star 5”, p. 162.


mirekw
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Aug 2006, 16:57
Location: Poland/Central Europe

Some correction

#78

Post by mirekw » 15 Apr 2009, 18:43

BTW
I am not sure of one victory given by Slon-76:

02.03.40 I-153 11 OIAE Ivanov KIA Turku Shot down in air combat

This one fit me as a VVS KBF? One fighter had been lost to 2xMS 406, but there are different place of it, near Oro.
If it would be VVS KBF loss, so there are would be not 16 but again 15 victories over land and navy fifgters. Anyway the ratio would be 2,26 to 1 not 3-4 to 1.

Maybe Slon 76 can explain this?

Regards,
Mirek Wawrzyński

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

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

#79

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Apr 2009, 18:57

Yes, I too earlier noticed small possible errors at the calculation.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

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

#80

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Apr 2009, 19:13

mirekw wrote:BTW
I am not sure of one victory given by Slon-76:

02.03.40 I-153 11 OIAE Ivanov KIA Turku Shot down in air combat

This one fit me as a VVS KBF? One fighter had been lost to 2xMS 406, but there are different place of it, near Oro.
If it would be VVS KBF loss, so there are would be not 16 but again 15 victories over land and navy fifgters. Anyway the ratio would be 2,26 to 1 not 3-4 to 1.

Maybe Slon 76 can explain this?
VVS KBF yes.
After the Soviet attack against Turku and fight against Finnish fighters, the plane piloted by 1St Ltn Arkady Ivanov made a forced landing near island Örö. Finns evacuated the lightly damaged plane, pilot was killed while resisting the capture.
RedStars5


Regards, Juha

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008, 17:56
Location: Moscow

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

#81

Post by Slon-76 » 16 Apr 2009, 22:00

mirekw wrote:Over claiming is not 3-4 but only 2,1!

I do not know from which sources Slon-76 had taken the figure of over claiming by Finns like 3-4 claimed Soviet fighters to their only 1 real, total lost?
I thought, that I rather in detail have explained it earlier...

mirekw wrote: I have count the figures of fighters claimed and credited by pilots of LeR 2. This regiment had 170 credited victories and it was Finns the first and the last fighter regiment fighting in WW There are only 34 credited victories over Soviet fighters like: I-16, I-153 and I-15 bis. So Finns over claiming ratio over Reds fighters is 2,26 to 1 but not 3-4 to 1.
At you simply old data. LeR-2 applied for 37 victories. (Look SIH 26-27. Aerial victories)
But if we count only victories LeR-2, from my list it is necessary to throw out 2 I-153, shot down on March, 5 and 7. OK?
Why nevertheless 3-4? Because I have included all possible variants which could be victories of the Finnish pilots in the list. It does not mean, that all of them on 100 % - victories of the Finnish Air Forces.
For example, Ivakin's I-15bis on the Soviet data it is damaged by antiaircraft fire above Kotka.
And Puhakka's this victory has not been included. Therefore it too can be removed from the list.
37:12=?
If to be captious the list can and be reduced still. ;)
mirekw wrote: This one fit me as a VVS KBF? One fighter had been lost to 2xMS 406, but there are different place of it, near Oro.
If it would be VVS KBF loss, so there are would be not 16 but again 15 victories over land and navy fifgters. Anyway the ratio would be 2,26 to 1 not 3-4 to 1.

Maybe Slon 76 can explain this?
Excuse, I have not understood a question.
What do you want, that I have explained?
Juha Tompuri wrote: Is the 29th claim official?
I've read about the issue at Red Stars 5, but did't know that.
I think 27th is the correct date.
Juha Tompuri wrote: Malmivuo started to an interception mission from Lake Haukkajärvi. There were low clouds and the battle that was fought over the Utti airfield, took place over the clouds, and could not be seen from the ground. 13.52 o'clock the Fiat came down at a steep dive at Mankki, 3,5km NE from the Utti airfield. Possibly the pilot had ben hit.
The enemy planes are mentioned to have been of type I-153 and I-16.
Victory official. On the Soviet data 12 I-153 13 IAP conducted fight with 3 Fiat's and 3 Fokker's and have shot down all Fiat's and 1 Fokker's. The Soviet fighters accompanied DB-3, bombing Kouvola.

I was not absolutely right, concerning non-flying weather 27.02.40.
In 13.30-13.34 (on Finnish time 12.30-12.35) twenty eight SB 31 SBAP bombed a congestion of echelons in Kouvola. They were protected with 17 fighters 149 IAP. In area Hamina a closing squadron 31 SBAP tried to attack three fighters, identified as "Gladiators". The Soviet fighters were developed for attack, and arrows of bombers have opened fire. On the Soviet data, the Finnish fighters, not accepting fight, have left in clouds.
Other air fights in this area was not this day, though in area Vilajoki - Karis the fighters of Air Forces Baltic Fleet rendered assault impacts much flied.

mirekw
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Aug 2006, 16:57
Location: Poland/Central Europe

The Return of balance in over claiming - Soviet side

#82

Post by mirekw » 17 Apr 2009, 12:34

Hi Slon 76
Slon 76
Thanks for explanation, I think that the main problem for our discussion is terminology:
like fighter’s pilot: claims, victory and later real destroyed planes.

I can not agree with such approach, that only total destroyed planes are counted as pilot victory. It is stupid and narrow-minded such thinking, as for me. It directly means, that many credited claims have to be removed/ deleted from the victory lists of plenty fighter aces, no matter of country.

If we would like to restore the balance sheet let’s see the Soviet fighter pilots over claiming ratio. There are according Soviet era data 427 aerial victories (I am not sure, that this data including both land and navy aviation, I estimate that yes).
Land aviation victory (VVS RKKA) had 362 destroyed planes land plus next were 65 gained by navy aviation (VVS KBF)

I do not have detail figures of types hidden in these 362 victories, so I have support my statistic with quite similar Shumachin data, which are a little bit higher (381 destroyed)

According Shuhmin information about Soviet success, during the Winter War Soviet aviation had total destroyed 381 enemy planes (of which 320 were fighters): 213 were shot down by fighters, 22 were destroyed on the ground, 146 were shot down by bombers (I thing 95% of claim were fighters?).

The navy aviation (VVS KBF) had claimed officially next 65 destroyed enemy planes: 54 shot down and next 11 destroyed on the ground. Taking in statistic only these 54 aerial victories: 43 were shot down by navy fighters, next 11 by navy bomber.

When we take only FAF fighters shot down and destroyed by Soviet land fighters we could get following statistic figures
1. The minimum is 153 destroyed FAF fighters (213-61 = 153)
2. The maximum is 174 destroyed FAF fighters (320-146 = 174)

Next
1. Adding to the 152 land victories + 45 navy = 197 enemy fighters destroyed by Soviet land and navy fighters.
2. Adding to the 174 land +45 navy = 219 enemy fighters destroyed by Soviet land and navy fighters

FAF total fighter losses:
According Finish data they lost: LeR 2 = 20 destroyed fighters in aerial combat plus 1 more Gladiator I from F.19, all will be 21 shot down and total destroyed fighters.


Soviet fighters have over claiming ratio over FAF fighters.
1. From minimum 197: 21= 9,40 to 1 ratio.
2. To the maximum 219:21= 10,4 to 1 ratio

So Soviet fighters over claiming ratio over FAF fighters could about 9-10 to 1.

I could not believe, that you would like to directly say to many Russian aviation veterans, historian people, that most of 92 HSU aviators awards had to be deleted, because they got this highest awards for pure fantastic victories, which had never happened during Winter War.

In above comparison FAF fighters over claiming over VVS RKKA and VVS KBF fighters is rater modes one.

Regards,
Mirek Wawrzysńki

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008, 17:56
Location: Moscow

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

#83

Post by Slon-76 » 17 Apr 2009, 15:16

mirekw wrote: I can not agree with such approach, that only total destroyed planes are counted as pilot victory. It is stupid and narrow-minded such thinking, as for me. It directly means, that many credited claims have to be removed/ deleted from the victory lists of plenty fighter aces, no matter of country.
Dear Mirek!
All over the world the air victory considers destruction of the plane of the enemy. I in this sense not exception. I do not think that the fact of hit in the plane of the enemy is an air victory.
Personal lists of victories of pilots - fighters is " the sacred cow ". They will change looking on anything. Hartman from him 352 victories - an excellent example. And I before myself also do not put such purpose.
You have the right to think somehow. I even know people believing what to force out the enemy from a battlefield - already air victory. And somewhat they are right. But at such approach senselessly to speak about fighting efficiency of fighters. For some reason such conversation by many is perceived as the personal insult and attempt to humiliate a merit of his country.

mirekw wrote: If we would like to restore the balance sheet let’s see the Soviet fighter pilots over claiming ratio. There are according Soviet era data 427 aerial victories (I am not sure, that this data including both land and navy aviation, I estimate that yes).
Land aviation victory (VVS RKKA) had 362 destroyed planes land plus next were 65 gained by navy aviation (VVS KBF)
I already spoke about it to other participant of a forum. Here conversation goes about the Finnish victories. And I would not like to withdraw this interesting discussion in other side.
If you want to discuss victories of the Soviet pilots - there are no problems but then start new.... I do not know as it refers to in English, at us it name "branch".
By the way at your clever approach to calculation of victories, I need to be pleased only to a brilliant victory of the Soviet pilots, who have crushed during Winter war the Finnish Air Forces.
You think so to believe objectively?
mirekw wrote: I could not believe, that you would like to directly say to many Russian aviation veterans, historian people, that most of 92 HSU aviators awards had to be deleted, because they got this highest awards for pure fantastic victories, which had never happened during Winter War.
I believe, you is simple not in a rate, for what gave a rank the Hero of Soviet Union. The shot down planes in this case were not a parameter. For example, second lieutenant Gorjunov had on the to account 7 of victories over group (from them 4 - quite real). But HSU was not. The lieutenant Vilchik had 4 personal and one group victory - too not HSU. And HSU Kurochkin had only 1 personal and one group victories.
And as far as I know, here there are no Finnish aviation veterans.


Regards,

mirekw
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Aug 2006, 16:57
Location: Poland/Central Europe

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

#84

Post by mirekw » 17 Apr 2009, 17:55

Thanks for the answer, :-)

All over the world the air victory considers destruction of the plane of the enemy. I in this sense not exception. I do not think that the fact of hit in the plane of the enemy is an air victory.
The first. I do not know from which “directory / state order etc.” you have taken such idea, that destruction of the plane is an air victory. It was an individual attitude in many air forces from WW I to WWII. There are for example Royal Rumanian Air Forces, which had credited 3 victories for downing one 4-engine bomber (B-24 or B-17) and 2 victories for 2-engine plane, near similar credit system was in Royal Bulgarian Air Forces in WW II.

The second - the hit and shot down a plane, which later had made force landing behind own line and was later repaired/rebuild, according your attitude is not counted as a victory. OK, what is then with such case? Damaged? Maybe yes? But it was done real damage for enemy. It also costs to make such damage planes airworthy.

Third - you "demand" from fighter pilot to directly following his victims after combat, to be 100% sure, that shot down plane had total crashed. This is total nonsense. Read Yuryj Rybin an article about claims and real victories over Arctic, it was printed a few years ago in AviaMaster (1999 or so). He very well written about this victory/destroyed dilemma among Soviet aces. The dilemma is universal.
“You have the right to think somehow. I even know people believing what to force out the enemy from a battlefield - already air victory. And somewhat they are right. But at such approach senselessly to speak about fighting efficiency of fighters.”
1. You are against own attitude or you are not consequent in your thinking. The efficiency in war is exactly making any kind of damage to the enemy (not only to kill) and reducing own losses – simplicity is to kill, wounded more enemy then own soldiers.
For many years it is well know, that for conducting war is better to make beside killing people also to making wounded people. According this doctrine there are plenty of land mines, which do not killing instantly the one who go on in, but only injuring (smashing feet, hand etc.). Wounded are costing more for the enemy then only simple killing.

2. When you directly look at fighting efficiency of fighters, you make simple error because you are comparing only fighter to fighter ratio victories. This is wrong thinking. When you talking about FAF you probably are still not aware, that on 28.01.40 was given officially order baning whole FAF’s fighters to not fight with Soviet fighters. The main aim /tactic of FAF fighter was never to destroyed/smashed Soviet fighters.
In was not possible for FAF anyway, when one side had over 1.000 fighters and you only have power of 46 (36 D.XXI + 10 Buldogs IV) it would be very idiot idea - strategy. So the main enemy for FAF's few fighters were only Reds bombers. It was also important not only to make destruction of bomber, but also making any kind of air attack, which could break their mission and force the bomber crews to unload bombs before their targets.

Second it was also not possible to break many bomber mission because having the force of 46 fighters (later no more then 100) and your enemy had about next 1000 bombers, later about 1600 bombers. Anyway FAF fighters had inflicted quite seriously harm for bombers of VVS RKKA and VVS KBF

By the way at your clever approach to calculation of victories, I need to be pleased only to a brilliant victory of the Soviet pilots, who have crushed during Winter war the Finnish Air Forces.
Slona 76 - I do not know to treat you still seriously or not, but you for sure are not know the meaning of word “crushed”. You make strange mistake (not professional as for me), or you are not aware this: “Soviet Air Force for over 100 days of Winter War could not to crushed very small and very weak power of FAF”. Having over FAF’s about 20 fold superiority in planes VVS RKKA and VVS KBF never could fully destroyed/crushed any kind of FAF air units.

Second, the same was with Finns main warships, which were never serious damaged despites hundreds sorties done by Soviet strong aviation.

Probably you want to believe that FAF was equal enemy for VVS - but it is not true. Not in such huge disproportion of power.
Please do not write such silly or stupid remarks.
Soviet air power during Winter War was very, very ineffective in any kind of comparison. No comments to this. This is obvious.

Regards
Mirek Wawrzynski

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008, 17:56
Location: Moscow

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

#85

Post by Slon-76 » 17 Apr 2009, 19:44

mirekw wrote:Thanks for the answer, :-)
There is nothing.

Dear Mirek!
You have told a plenty of the words which are not having the relations to a theme of conversation. But as I not lazy, I shall answer you this time.
Do not tell to me from what you proceeded calculating figures 2,1; 2,26?
What for to pretend, that you do not understand about what there is a conversation and to write banal stories about 4 motor planes and victories of the Air Forces of Romania.
mirekw wrote:The second - the hit and shot down a plane, which later had made force landing behind own line and was later repaired/rebuild, according your attitude is not counted as a victory. OK, what is then with such case? Damaged? Maybe yes? But it was done real damage for enemy. It also costs to make such damage planes airworthy.
Damaged. Can you inform me, as far as the plane should be damaged to begin an air victory? Any damage - a victory? Three - four holes is a damage? It is possible to count their air victory?
mirekw wrote:Third - you "demand" from fighter pilot to directly following his victims after combat, to be 100% sure, that shot down plane had total crashed. This is total nonsense. Read Yuryj Rybin an article about claims and real victories over Arctic, it was printed a few years ago in AviaMaster (1999 or so). He very well written about this victory/destroyed dilemma among Soviet aces. The dilemma is universal.
I demand nothing from pilots. I try to tell, how many the Soviet fighters have been ACTUALLY DESTROYED by the Finnish pilots. And to solve the disputable moments.
mirekw wrote:
“You have the right to think somehow. I even know people believing what to force out the enemy from a battlefield - already air victory. And somewhat they are right. But at such approach senselessly to speak about fighting efficiency of fighters.”
1. You are against own attitude or you are not consequent in your thinking.


I think, that you simply do not wish to understand, about what I speak...
mirekw wrote:2. When you directly look at fighting efficiency of fighters, you make simple error because you are comparing only fighter to fighter ratio victories. This is wrong thinking. When you talking about FAF you probably are still not aware, that on 28.01.40 was given officially order baning whole FAF’s fighters to not fight with Soviet fighters. The main aim /tactic of FAF fighter was never to destroyed/smashed Soviet fighters.
I am familiar with a history of Winter war, at least, not worse you. Including, I know that this order for the first time has been issued Magnusson's мuch earlier 28.01.40.
I in general your treatment of this order am rather curious: You sincerely believe, what by the main task of the Finnish fighters was to be hidden from the Soviet fighters? To not be them destroyed?

mirekw wrote:In was not possible for FAF anyway, when one side had over 1.000 fighters and you only have power of 46 (36 D.XXI + 10 Buldogs IV) it would be very idiot idea - strategy. So the main enemy for FAF's few fighters were only Reds bombers. It was also important not only to make destruction of bomber, but also making any kind of air attack, which could break their mission and force the bomber crews to unload bombs before their targets.
And as far as the Finnish Air Forces have succeeded in it?
mirekw wrote:Second it was also not possible to break many bomber mission because having the force of 46 fighters (later no more then 100) and your enemy had about next 1000 bombers, later about 1600 bombers. Anyway FAF fighters had inflicted quite seriously harm for bombers of VVS RKKA and VVS KBF
Wonderfully. Now it are necessary to find out, who with it argues...:)
mirekw wrote:

Slona 76 - I do not know to treat you still seriously or not, but you for sure are not know the meaning of word “crushed”. You make strange mistake (not professional as for me), or you are not aware this: “Soviet Air Force for over 100 days of Winter War could not to crushed very small and very weak power of FAF”. Having over FAF’s about 20 fold superiority in planes VVS RKKA and VVS KBF never could fully destroyed/crushed any kind of FAF air units.


It is pleasant to talk to such professional people as you. Whether will complicate you to give an example " fully destroyed/crushed " any Air Forces, not accompanied with full occupation of the country?
I have written
By the way at your clever approach to calculation of victories, I need to be pleased only to a brilliant victory of the Soviet pilots, who have crushed during Winter war the Finnish Air Forces.
It is not necessary to deform sense of my words.
mirekw wrote:
Second, the same was with Finns main warships, which were never serious damaged despites hundreds sorties done by Soviet strong aviation.
Hundreds? And why not millions?
mirekw wrote:
Probably you want to believe that FAF was equal enemy for VVS - but it is not true. Not in such huge disproportion of power.
Please do not write such silly or stupid remarks.
I would like to ask you about the same, but I shall ask about it: Please, refrain from rudeness.
mirekw wrote:
Soviet air power during Winter War was very, very ineffective in any kind of comparison. No comments to this. This is obvious.
Comparisons with what? With the Finnish air power?
Do not begin conversation on on what you, by your retorts, have no the slightest representation.
«Огнем артиллерии и воздушными бомбардировками выведено из строя значительное число пулемётов и противотанковых орудий, их недостаток ощущается на всех направлениях. Активные действия вражеской авиации зачастую делают невозможным переброску и снабжение войск».
« Fire of artillery and air bombardments put out of action significant number of machine guns and anti-tank instruments, their lack is felt on all directions. Active actions of enemy aircraft frequently do impossible moving and supply of armies ».
The general – lieutenant A.E. Heirichs

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

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

#86

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Apr 2009, 22:26

Slon-76 wrote:But if we count only victories LeR-2, from my list it is necessary to throw out 2 I-153, shot down on March, 5 and 7. OK?
Acually not if we here are after the Finnish fighter claims and acchievements.

Slon-76 wrote:For example, Ivakin's I-15bis on the Soviet data it is damaged by antiaircraft fire above Kotka.
And Puhakka's this victory has not been included. Therefore it too can be removed from the list.

Ivakin?
Do you mean Ivanov, shot down 27th Feb-40 according to the Soviet sources?

Slon-76 wrote: 37:12=?
If to be captious the list can and be reduced still. ;)
Probably if only relying to the Soviet sources.

Slon-76 wrote:Victory official. On the Soviet data 12 I-153 13 IAP conducted fight with 3 Fiat's and 3 Fokker's and have shot down all Fiat's and 1 Fokker's. The Soviet fighters accompanied DB-3, bombing Kouvola.

I was not absolutely right, concerning non-flying weather 27.02.40.
In 13.30-13.34 (on Finnish time 12.30-12.35) twenty eight SB 31 SBAP bombed a congestion of echelons in Kouvola. They were protected with 17 fighters 149 IAP. In area Hamina a closing squadron 31 SBAP tried to attack three fighters, identified as "Gladiators". The Soviet fighters were developed for attack, and arrows of bombers have opened fire. On the Soviet data, the Finnish fighters, not accepting fight, have left in clouds.
Other air fights in this area was not this day, though in area Vilajoki - Karis the fighters of Air Forces Baltic Fleet rendered assault impacts much flied.
Thans for the info, but I still have doubts over the Soviet date.


Regards, Juha

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008, 17:56
Location: Moscow

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

#87

Post by Slon-76 » 19 Apr 2009, 10:01

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote:But if we count only victories LeR-2, from my list it is necessary to throw out 2 I-153, shot down on March, 5 and 7. OK?
Acually not if we here are after the Finnish fighter claims and acchievements.
Simply these victories are gained by pilots LLv 14. Certainly, in general the list of victories they remain.
I simply wanted to show mirekw, that "playing" with figures it is possible to achieve any desirable result.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote:For example, Ivakin's I-15bis on the Soviet data it is damaged by antiaircraft fire above Kotka.
And Puhakka's this victory has not been included. Therefore it too can be removed from the list.

Ivakin?
Do you mean Ivanov, shot down 27th Feb-40 according to the Soviet sources?
Sorry. It I a mistake. Correct date - 26.02.40, a correct surname - Ivakin
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote: 37:12=?
If to be captious the list can and be reduced still. ;)

Probably if only relying to the Soviet sources.
And how still it is possible to confirm a victory, if not with documents of the opposite party?
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote:Victory official. On the Soviet data 12 I-153 13 IAP conducted fight with 3 Fiat's and 3 Fokker's and have shot down all Fiat's and 1 Fokker's. The Soviet fighters accompanied DB-3, bombing Kouvola.

I was not absolutely right, concerning non-flying weather 27.02.40.
In 13.30-13.34 (on Finnish time 12.30-12.35) twenty eight SB 31 SBAP bombed a congestion of echelons in Kouvola. They were protected with 17 fighters 149 IAP. In area Hamina a closing squadron 31 SBAP tried to attack three fighters, identified as "Gladiators". The Soviet fighters were developed for attack, and arrows of bombers have opened fire. On the Soviet data, the Finnish fighters, not accepting fight, have left in clouds.
Other air fights in this area was not this day, though in area Vilajoki - Karis the fighters of Air Forces Baltic Fleet rendered assault impacts much flied.
Thans for the info, but I still have doubts over the Soviet date.
I think here all simply. Mistakes are not present neither in Soviet, nor in the Finnish documents. Probably, the Soviet pilots simply have not understood, that have shot down FIAT, therefore and have not reported on it. A casual bullet...

Regards,

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

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

#88

Post by Harri » 19 Apr 2009, 13:06

Slon-76 wrote:And how still it is possible to confirm a victory, if not with documents of the opposite party?
The documents of the opposite party are just one way to confirm a victory. The other methods are for example:
- eyewitnesses (other pilots or ground forces, especially coastal units reported lots of crashes to sea as well as air surveillance and air raid protection troops)
- captured pilots (proved that they had self been downed, could also give information on losses)
- forced landed or crashed planes found (some friendly and enemy wrecks were found as late as during the Continuation War)
- radio intelligence (Finnish radio intelligence captured Soviet loss reports)
- intelligence (Soviet losses in Estonia were reported to Finland counting the plane wrecks around the airfields)

And so on. At least in FInland it is said that official records of many Soviet units are missing or not available for researchers. Also there are lots of confusing and conflicting information.
Slon-76 wrote:Probably, the Soviet pilots simply have not understood, that have shot down FIAT, therefore and have not reported on it. A casual bullet...
Recognizing a plane type (especially new types) during a combat has been a problem anywhere. As an example: (FiAF II 1928-40 page 162: 11.3.1940) "15 IAP claimed one Spitfire, 7 DBAP another Spitfire and one Fokker D.XXI shot down."

User avatar
Slon-76
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Sep 2008, 17:56
Location: Moscow

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

#89

Post by Slon-76 » 19 Apr 2009, 17:18

Harri wrote: The documents of the opposite party are just one way to confirm a victory. The other methods are for example:
You, are certainly, right. However, IMHO, documents of the contradictory party nevertheless most authentic of the herein provided sources (Except for the shot down pilot). But for the clear reasons, it becomes accessible only after the ending of war

Harri wrote: - eyewitnesses (other pilots or ground forces, especially coastal units reported lots of crashes to sea as well as air surveillance and air raid protection troops)
The certificate of eyewitnesses (including from the ground) - least a reliable source. As a rule, the majority overclaimes "is confirmed" such sources.
There are some cases when at once some the Soviet pilots reported that saw falling the Finnish plane. With the exact indication of a place of falling and circumstances. However Finnish given loss of the plane deny. And I should agree with it. (Though very much it would not be desirable :) )

Harri wrote: - captured pilots (proved that they had self been downed, could also give information on losses)
The captured pilot in itself - the objective proof of destruction of the plane of the opponent. Here you will not argue. But if you will result to me an example of capture of the Soviet pilot - fighter which is not present in my list - I shall be ready to recognize, that ALL victories of the Finnish pilots over Winter war - extremely authentic. In my opinion, in this case divergences of my table with the objective facts it is not observed.
Well and indications of captured pilots - a thing very subjective.
Harri wrote: - forced landed or crashed planes found (some friendly and enemy wrecks were found as late as during the Continuation War)
The plane found after a while very difficultly from 100 % accuracy to identify with a concrete victory. We already assorted here similar cases. For example, Juutilainens victory 31.1.40.
That is I want to tell, that this method as rather authentic, but does not exclude mistakes.
Harri wrote: - radio intelligence (Finnish radio intelligence captured Soviet loss reports)
It too a quite good source, but besides not absolutely authentic. An example - victories of Swedes on January, 17.

Harri wrote: - intelligence (Soviet losses in Estonia were reported to Finland counting the plane wrecks around the airfields)
I not so present, as on the basis of such data it is possible to identify a victory authentically. And if, for example, "fragments" became result of failure because of bad preparation of the pilot? And the Finnish pilot this day has application for a victory?
I with pleasure would disassemble some examples when a victory to the Finnish pilot have included on the basis of such data. It would be very interesting to me, as for the researcher. I would be grateful, if you, or someone another, such episodes would result some.


Harri wrote: And so on. At least in FInland it is said that official records of many Soviet units are missing or not available for researchers. Also there are lots of confusing and conflicting information.
I 10 years am engaged in studying of air aspect of Winter war, including working in the Russian archives. Also I can assure you, that it not so.
Overwhelming majority of documents of the aviation units which were taking part in Winter war, are open and accessible to researchers.
Harri wrote:
Slon-76 wrote:Probably, the Soviet pilots simply have not understood, that have shot down FIAT, therefore and have not reported on it. A casual bullet...
Recognizing a plane type (especially new types) during a combat has been a problem anywhere. As an example: (FiAF II 1928-40 page 162: 11.3.1940) "15 IAP claimed one Spitfire, 7 DBAP another Spitfire and one Fokker D.XXI shot down."
It not the "heaviest" case. The Soviet pilots "met" in the sky of Finland both "messrschmitts", and "Howks" and even two-engined fighters... Finns frequently confused SB and DB-3. Therefore I on such things as exact identification of planes by pilots not so I pay attention.

mirekw
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Aug 2006, 16:57
Location: Poland/Central Europe

Facts and figures not empty speculation

#90

Post by mirekw » 19 Apr 2009, 19:39

You have write this openly I need to be pleased only to a brilliant victory of the Soviet pilots, who have crushed during Winter war the Finnish Air Forces.
The facts are following:
30.11.39 - FAF had 36 D.XXU + 10 Bulldogs IV
1.04.40, FAF had 24 D.XXI, 20 + 3 overhauled G.50, 22+1 MS.406, 10 Hurricanes and 15 +2 Brewster B.239, which did not fight in WW. Gladiators had been removed to other units being replaced by G.50 in end of February 1940.
About 76 fighters were in FAF air power in April 1940. What you are talking about, when you talking about crushed aviation.
“But at such approach senselessly to speak about fighting efficiency of fighters.”
Slon76 you again do not understand the meaning the word efficiency, similar like crushed.
One meaning is input towards output.
1. The amount of sorties and the amount of destroyed planes. Soviet fighters (land + navy) had done all 50.407 sorties and had, as you wish, destroyed with total devastating effect FAF "all its air force" of 22 (21 FAF and 1 F.19) fighters. So for 1 total crushed enemy fighter Soviet had to do 2291 sorties.

2. According your clever opinion this crushed enemy fighters had done 3486 sorties up the end of war and destroyed 15 or just now 12 (in May 2009 you will going still down to reduced FAF claims to only 5-6, I suppose?).

So for 1 total crushed Soviet fighter Finns they had to done 232 sorties for 15 destroyed, or 290 sorties for 12 destroyed.

The both side fighters efficiency is towards this fact evident. Sloan 76 you are again against hard fact.

BTW. There are not calculated F.19 fighters sorties and its 1 fighter victory (1 I-15bis from 145 IAP on 17.01.40) gained during 464 sorties had done in WW - this victory does not existing in your list?



I in general your treatment of this order am rather curious: You sincerely believe, what by the main task of the Finnish fighters was to be hidden from the Soviet fighters? To not be them destroyed?
Yes I think so. The main goal was to reduce owe losses inflicted by enemy fighters deliberatly as much as possible to evade combats with I-16, I-153, I-15bis. Next was to make as much as possible destruction to Soviet bombers and reccon forces. This strategy was very well conduced and let FAF to minimize own fighter losses. The official FAF’s orders are confirming this strategy – “hit and run”. Slon you do not know about this? Strange!!!
Whether will complicate you to give an example " fully destroyed/crushed " any Air Forces, not accompanied with full occupation of the country?

Soviet Union had lost the Winter War despite overwhelming superiority. It is evident, and you are rejecting this idea wanting to proof that Soviet VVS had won the battle.

Second. Luftwaffe power was smashed by constant Allied air power attacks on the ground, in air in 1944-45. Germans could not do almost nothing against them having such fighters like Me 262. It was happened before fall of Berlin. Disproportion in amount of fighters was not so high as it was in Winter War. Quality was even higher counting Me 262.


Slon 76. You are very deeply want to bank/twist the true to your personal and onside vision of history. Second you are lacking: precision, distance in your researches hiding and manipulating the evident fact and figures.

This is not personal, but I hate, when one man is against the evident facts and figures. This is against the true.


Regards,

Mirek Wawrzyński


------------------------------------------------------------------

Post edited by moderator.
Even disagreeing, let's keep it polite.
Also everyone is allowed to post under a Forum name, no need to guess the real one publicly.

/Juha

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”