Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16

[Juha Tompuri]

After some preliminary discussion at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&start=30
and
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&start=30
The Toivo Uuttu Bulldog against 6 Soviet I-16 subject has now a thread of it's own here.

Some basic things from the threads mentioned.
Uuttu combat report:

(my translation)
Uuttu patrolling over Muolaa at ca. 1500m height, and begining to descend:

...at the same time I pushed the plane downwards, tracers began to sputter all over me. The attack came from the sun. When I looked over my shoulder I saw three I-16 at by back. One was straight at my back and two others at the sides and also 2-3 planes above me.
I instinctively pulled an evasive maneuvre to the up left, and ater that I managed to fire a short burst to the side of the right side plane that was pulling up. After that i pushed the nose down to be able to execute a new evasive maneuvre. When I looked up, I saw a similar case. Then I pulled towards a plane coming at an oblique angle. That resulted the plane pulling up to the side, away. At that moment I managed to fire a well aimed brust to the fuselage bottom at plane nose. I noticed couple of puffs of black smoke coming from the [I-16, JT]engine. After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first. After that I noticed a trail of pale smoke coming from the plane.
As the speed had reduced, I pushed the nose down twisting. Tracers sputtered all over me all the time. i felt the plane fuselage shaking, and when pulled the stick, it didn't move. I thought about jumping, but as I knew i would be shot I decided to try out to the last. I tried to evade my attackers using only rudder and aerlions. At ca. 200m when looking behind, I saw one still following and shooting. I shut off my engine and pulled with both hands from the stick and it moved a bit and the plane recovered from the dive but then the plane hit the trees and after the crash I became unconscious.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&start=45

Soviet report:

Here a fragment of fighting report Shinkarenko about fight with Uutu:

Придя на место предполагаемого противника в район озеро Каук-ярви противника не обнаружено. На высоте 700 метров патрулировало звено И-16. Пройдя по дороге на город Кюреля на высоте 1500 метров обнаружен самолет противника истребительного типа полутороплан над озером Юск-ярви. Звеном в составе старшего лейтенанта Шинкаренко, старшего политрука Диденко и лейтенанта Григорьева произведен обстрел с-та который в бой не вступил и после открытия огня перешел в крутое пикирование с углом 60-70о было 2 попытки вывести с-т в горизонтальный полет но после 2й попытки опять перешел в пикирование с углом 60-70о пикировал до высоты 100-75 метров где пытаясь выводить скрылся в дыму который в результате пожара закрыл местность до высоты 70-100 метров в котором видимости совершенно не было. По предположениям летного состава самолет врезался в лес.


1. Pokryshev with them any more was not. Нe has lagged behind earlier.
2. Him I-16 have repaired. It has not been lost.
3. From the ground shoots not only air defence...

Under Soviet version Uutu did not shoot

Babelfish translation:

After arriving in the place of the assumed enemy into the region the lake Of [kauk]-[yarvi] of enemy not discovered. The component I, patrolled at the height of 700 meters. After passing along the road to [Kyurelya] city at the height of 1500 meters it is discovered the aircraft of destructive type enemy the sesquiplane above [Yusk]-[yarvi] lake. Component in the composition of the Senior Lieutenant [Shinkarenko], elder political instructor [Didenko] and Lieutenant Grigoryev produced firing hundred whom into the battle it did not enter also after opening fire it passed into the nose dive with the angle 60-70[o] was 2 attempts to derive T in the level flight but after 2[y] of attempt it again passed into the dive with the angle 60-70[o] it dived to the height of 100-75 meters where attempting to derive it was hidden in to smoke whom as a result fire shut locality to the height of 70-100 meters in which there was no visibility completely. On the assumptions of crew the aircraft cut into the forest.

Also:

1. The Soviet documents the version, that the Pokryshev’s plane have been damaged in air I fight do not confirm. You to me already let know, that for you it - not argument. But you should understand, that the argument nobody the confirmed Uuttu’s words is exact also for me not.
2. I consulted to knowing people concerning that, the plane with described Uuttu symptoms could to fly by about 30 kilometers. To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.
3. If I have correctly understood, Uuttu shot on I-16 from position "behind - above". To strike from such position an oil - radiator - very big success.
4. Pokryshev was rather skilled pilots and hardly could admit such gross blunder, having slipped forward not only the commander a part (him was not in structure of link Shinkarenko), but also the attacked opponent.
5. It is surprising, that Uuttu, being continuously under bombardment, could see where he has got, that has taken place with plane of the opponent where and as it has departed also what color a smoke let out. It is trusted in it hardly.
6. With Pokryshev’s words, him have damaged fire from the ground. As the plane have restored later, probably his words have found acknowledgement at survey of the machine. At least in all lists the plane appears as damaged fire from the ground.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&start=45

/Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

From http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&start=45

1. The Soviet documents the version, that the Pokryshev’s plane have been damaged in air I fight do not confirm. You to me already let know, that for you it - not argument. But you should understand, that the argument nobody the confirmed Uuttu’s words is exact also for me not.

The Soviet report confirmed the Uuttu hit.

Who whom hit? I have not understood.

The Soviet report confirmed Uuttu having hit the Pokryshev I-16 to where Uuttu saw the his mg's hit: at the lower part of the plane nose.

2. I consulted to knowing people concerning that, the plane with described Uuttu symptoms could to fly by about 30 kilometers. To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.

You mean that when smoke (symptom) starts coming out from Soviet engines they are of 90% probability not able to fly more than 30km?

Not engines, and oils - tanks. I was not capable to explain it correctly with my English.

The symptom of the Uuttu mg hit to Pokryshev was that smoke came from the enemy plane (engine area). Uuttu didn't know the exact type of the damage he had caused to the I-16.

4. Pokryshev was rather skilled pilots and hardly could admit such gross blunder, having slipped forward not only the commander a part (him was not in structure of link Shinkarenko), but also the attacked opponent.

Everybody makes mistakes - some report about them, some try to hide them.

Everybody, behind exception Uuttu?

Uuttu mentioned his mistake at his report: he let the enemies surprise him from the sun.

5. It is surprising, that Uuttu, being continuously under bombardment, could see where he has got, that has taken place with plane of the opponent where and as it has departed also what color a smoke let out. It is trusted in it hardly.

Not continuously under the fire of the oppopnent, thanks to their tactics.
The Uuttu observations also were quite detailled and correct, and confirmed from the enemy:
-enemy plane type
-number of enemy
-where he hit
Also he reported about the enemy mg's, tactics, plane performance etc.

1. Well also what?
2. Where you have seen it?
3. He knew, where flied.
4. Where you have found out it in his official report?

1.)Plane:
-maneuverable and quite fast (compared to Fokker D. XXI both faster and more maneuverable)
Guns:
-enemy planes had 4 mg's (2 at wings, 2 at fuselage)
-The wing guns seemed to fire directly ahead
-guns were of rapid fire type
-also incendiary and AP-ammo
Tactics:
-attacks half group at time, the rest waiting up.
-attacks from above-behind.
Fire:
-compared to us the beginning of fire from much more greater distance.
-pull out quite close. The middle plane straight up, and then a strange tilting maneuvre, following a new attack.
The wing planes from sideway up following similar tilting maneuvre.
-When pulling off, the other half group attacks.
-the flying style seemingly zig-zagging and movements jerking and sudden.

2.) & 4.)

C-E Bruun Hävittäjälentolaivue 26 book

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1319865

3.)
Sorry, but I don't understand.

6. With Pokryshev’s words, him have damaged fire from the ground. As the plane have restored later, probably his words have found acknowledgement at survey of the machine. At least in all lists the plane appears as damaged fire from the ground.

Pokryshev is a bit alone with his words of being hit from the ground.
Does he mention any details: place, time, height, damage in detail?
And where he force landed?

And who confirms Uuttu’s words?

Pokryshev.

Naturally Pokryshev informed a place of landing. His plane there also have found.

Well, can you then reveal it to us?


Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

The Soviet report confirmed Uuttu having hit the Pokryshev I-16 to where Uuttu saw the his mg's hit: at the lower part of the plane nose.

It really very strong your argument. But nevertheless not solving.

Not engines, and oils - tanks. I was not capable to explain it correctly with my English.

The symptom of the Uuttu mg hit to Pokryshev was that smoke came from the enemy plane (engine area). Uuttu didn't know the exact type of the damage he had caused to the I-16.

And here this argument - very weak. Actually I already spoke why:

2. I consulted to knowing people concerning that, the plane with described Uuttu symptoms could to fly by about 30 kilometers. To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.

Everybody makes mistakes - some report about them, some try to hide them.

Everybody, behind exception Uuttu?

Uuttu mentioned his mistake at his report: he let the enemies surprise him from the sun.

And in what you see mistake Uuttu? Attack on the part of the sun just the excellent justification of own carelessness.

1. Well also what?
2. Where you have seen it?
3. He knew, where flied.
4. Where you have found out it in his official report?

1.)Plane:
-maneuverable and quite fast (compared to Fokker D. XXI both faster and more maneuverable)
Guns:
-enemy planes had 4 mg's (2 at wings, 2 at fuselage)
-The wing guns seemed to fire directly ahead
-guns were of rapid fire type
-also incendiary and AP-ammo
Tactics:
-attacks half group at time, the rest waiting up.
-attacks from above-behind.
Fire:
-compared to us the beginning of fire from much more greater distance.
-pull out quite close. The middle plane straight up, and then a strange tilting maneuvre, following a new attack.
The wing planes from sideway up following similar tilting maneuvre.
-When pulling off, the other half group attacks.
-the flying style seemingly zig-zagging and movements jerking and sudden.

I suspect, that the translation of official Uuttu’s report taken from the Russian editions available at me, appreciablly differs from yours. Probably, because of poor-quality translation (at us it in general the big trouble).
You could not reproduce completely the official report? And that sometimes seems to me, that we speak about different things.

And such question. Unless before war the Finnish pilots were not familiar with the planes worth on arms of Air Forces RKKA? In general the list resulted by you is more likely result of attentive Uuttu's comprehension of the events which have occurred with him. Not clear, for example, why he compares speed and a maneuverability with Fokkers instead of to the Bulldog?
From the text symbiosis of pre-war knowledge of the pilot with his fighting experience is seen. Actually and Shinkarenko in the official report specifies, that the opponent tried to remove the plane from a dive twice. I do not see here any contradiction.

6. With Pokryshev’s words, him have damaged fire from the ground. As the plane have restored later, probably his words have found acknowledgement at survey of the machine. At least in all lists the plane appears as damaged fire from the ground.

Pokryshev is a bit alone with his words of being hit from the ground.
Does he mention any details: place, time, height, damage in detail?
And where he force landed?

And who confirms Uuttu’s words?

Pokryshev.

????!!!!! WHERE? The citation, please!

Naturally Pokryshev informed a place of landing. His plane there also have found.

Well, can you then reveal it to us?

Pokryshev has landed on a bog in area of village Kekrola, NE lake Siesjarvi. Moscow time - 13.00-13.10

Regards

[Juha Tompuri]

Not engines, and oils - tanks. I was not capable to explain it correctly with my English.

The symptom of the Uuttu mg hit to Pokryshev was that smoke came from the enemy plane (engine area). Uuttu didn't know the exact type of the damage he had caused to the I-16.

And here this argument - very weak. Actually I already spoke why:

2. I consulted to knowing people concerning that, the plane with described Uuttu symptoms could to fly by about 30 kilometers.

I've also written about that earlier:

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line. With the pierced oil radiator Of [pokryshev] hardly so many it would fly. Version with the firing from the earth to me seems more plausible, but these are only my personal impressions. But in any event, the aircraft Of [pokrysheva] (I -16 of № 1021625) was returned into the system. Therefore on the whole there are no reasons for the dispute. There is no confirmation of victory To [uuttu]. At best it damaged the aircraft Of [pokrysheva]. I do think, a question on this can be closed?

The battle started from ca.1500m height, I think that ca there one can reach the mentioned distance as the engine seemed to work at least at the beginning.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&start=45

To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.

Pokryshev seems to have left the scene before the other Soviet pilots.

Everybody makes mistakes - some report about them, some try to hide them.

Everybody, behind exception Uuttu?

Uuttu mentioned his mistake at his report: he let the enemies surprise him from the sun.

And in what you see mistake Uuttu? Attack on the part of the sun just the excellent justification of own carelessness.

Yes, Uuttu was careless, made a mistake, admitted it - so?

And such question. Unless before war the Finnish pilots were not familiar with the planes worth on arms of Air Forces RKKA? In general the list resulted by you is more likely result of attentive Uuttu's comprehension of the events which have occurred with him. Not clear, for example, why he compares speed and a maneuverability with Fokkers instead of to the Bulldog?

Everything was faster than Bulldog - that would not have been of any news.

From the text symbiosis of pre-war knowledge of the pilot with his fighting experience is seen. Actually and Shinkarenko in the official report specifies, that the opponent tried to remove the plane from a dive twice. I do not see here any contradiction.

The end part of the Soviet report seems to match with the Uuttu one.

6. With Pokryshev’s words, him have damaged fire from the ground. As the plane have restored later, probably his words have found acknowledgement at survey of the machine. At least in all lists the plane appears as damaged fire from the ground.

Pokryshev is a bit alone with his words of being hit from the ground.
Does he mention any details: place, time, height, damage in detail?
And where he force landed?

And who confirms Uuttu’s words?

Pokryshev.

????!!!!! WHERE? The citation, please!

Here:

...The bullet has got in an oil radiator I-16 (One more argument not for the benefit of Uutu. A radiator from below). The engine has jammed later.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&start=30

Naturally Pokryshev informed a place of landing. His plane there also have found.

Well, can you then reveal it to us?

Pokryshev has landed on a bog in area of village Kekrola, NE lake Siesjarvi. Moscow time - 13.00-13.10

Thanks.


Regards, Juha

[Slon-76]

I've also written about that earlier:

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line. With the pierced oil radiator Of [pokryshev] hardly so many it would fly. Version with the firing from the earth to me seems more plausible, but these are only my personal impressions. But in any event, the aircraft Of [pokrysheva] (I -16 of № 1021625) was returned into the system. Therefore on the whole there are no reasons for the dispute. There is no confirmation of victory To [uuttu]. At best it damaged the aircraft Of [pokrysheva]. I do think, a question on this can be closed?

The battle started from ca.1500m height, I think that ca there one can reach the mentioned distance as the engine seemed to work at least at the beginning.

But in fact under Uuttu’s version I-16 at once started to lose height! Jak-18 at refusal of the motor on planning loses for 7 km of distance of height of 1 km. I-16 plans worse. If Uuttu did not write about " a black smoke " - his version would be plausible.

To me have answered, that with probability of 90 % - is not present. In any case, the squadron should lower speed that Pokryshev it was kept in group. I.e. to not notice, that his plane is damaged other pilots not could.

Pokryshev seems to have left the scene before the other Soviet pilots.

Of him have lost sight only in area Siesjarvi.

Everybody makes mistakes - some report about them, some try to hide them.

Everybody, behind exception Uuttu?

Uuttu mentioned his mistake at his report: he let the enemies surprise him from the sun.

And in what you see mistake Uuttu? Attack on the part of the sun just the excellent justification of own carelessness.

Yes, Uuttu was careless, made a mistake, admitted it - so?

Probably.
But. I do not see here his mistake. What has he recognized? What cannot look at the sun? Or what as do not fly, the sun all the same will shine somewhere?
Basically he has recognized, that him attacked from a unique foreshortening which he basically could not supervise. In my opinion, it is more similar to the self-justification.
I shall remind, what Shinkarenko’s group totaled 14 I-16. All of them were hidden on a background of the sun?

And such question. Unless before war the Finnish pilots were not familiar with the planes worth on arms of Air Forces RKKA? In general the list resulted by you is more likely result of attentive Uuttu's comprehension of the events which have occurred with him. Not clear, for example, why he compares speed and a maneuverability with Fokkers instead of to the Bulldog?

Everything was faster than Bulldog - that would not have been of any news.

Question: Uuttu flied on Fokkers?

From the text symbiosis of pre-war knowledge of the pilot with his fighting experience is seen. Actually and Shinkarenko in the official report specifies, that the opponent tried to remove the plane from a dive twice. I do not see here any contradiction.

The end part of the Soviet report seems to match with the Uuttu one.

There all well corresponds. Except for that, shot Uuttu on the Soviet planes whether or not.

????!!!!! WHERE? The citation, please!

Here:

...The bullet has got in an oil radiator I-16 (One more argument not for the benefit of Uutu. A radiator from below). The engine has jammed later.

[/quote]

And where here it is written about Uuttu?

***

Dear Juha!
As I already spoke, I do not exclude that Pokryshev has been damaged by the Bulldog. But there are some serious bases to doubt of it.
The first - improbable story Uuttu. If he "has not decorated" the report with effective details about a black smoke from the motor - the picture developed quite logical. At I-16 Pokrysheva the radiator is punched oil, he some time flies together with everything while oil was not terminated, and then started to lag behind and has landed with the stopped motor.
The second - completely senseless Shinkarenko's lies. Thus he simply stipulates himself! If all saw, that Pokryshev is damaged, then it would be favourable to inform how is. In fact Shinkarenko accompanies with a padded fighter up to the territory, i.e. does everything, that can make. Under his real official report leaves, that he has lost the navigator of a squadron for not clear reasons and where he is - does not know.
I.e., Uuttu's motives to embellish the first fight to me be clear, Shinkarenko's motives to report such - be absolutely not clear.
As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian. I now very "densely" am engaged in fights for Suomussalmi. And examples of simply enchantling lies come across me on the part of some Finnish army officers. This history has especially impressed here.

The chase

The first orders to begin chasing the Soviet forces on Lake Kiantajärvi were given during the night between 29 Dec and 30th. From the III/JR 64, the reserve of JR 27, a detachment was formed. The detachment consisted of a machine gun platoon, moving with 5 trucks and having as additional support weapons one AT-gun and an AA-machine gun.
The detachment was led by Capt. H.Kuistio, and it was to drive to the northern end of Lake Kiantajärvi. The detachment set out before dawn, and moved along the eastern shore. The detachment had problems right from the start as the lake was covered with thick snow (they weren't moving along the ploughed ice road). Capt. Kuistio was forced to return 3 trucks, and continued it's mission with 2 trucks (one truck armed with 2 mg's and 2 smg's and another truck with a twin AA-mg and 2 smg's) . They encountered a kilometer long column, near the Lake Kiantajärvi fork. The Finns surprised the column (that was probably the first time, when they saw a truck used by the Finns) by moving close to it and opening a murderous fire from close range. The column was consisted of 500 men armed with rifles, moving in a sparse double file. The massacre lasted 20 minutes, with only some 100 Soviet soldiers escaping. The detachment lost one man badly wounded. A grim end to the last large group of Soviet soldiers who had left Kylänmäki.
On the way back to the Suomussalmi church, the detachment met some small groups of Soviet soldiers, which were more or less destroyed.

http://www.winterwar.com/Battles/Suomussalmi2.htm#top

Really the column did not exceed 80 person, and was lost about ten. This history was in detail investigated and about any serious distortion of the facts from the Soviet party of speech does not go. I read also materials of interrogations of witnesses, and conclusions of the various commissions, etc.
However, we in some cases too in expressions did not hesitate.



Regards

[peeved]

As I already spoke, I do not exclude that Pokryshev has been damaged by the Bulldog. But there are some serious bases to doubt of it.
The first - improbable story Uuttu. If he "has not decorated" the report with effective details about a black smoke from the motor - the picture developed quite logical. At I-16 Pokrysheva the radiator is punched oil, he some time flies together with everything while oil was not terminated, and then started to lag behind and has landed with the stopped motor.

I'm no engine expert but couldn't the black smoke have been the result of a too rich mixture in Pokryshev's Polikarpov's engine?

I pulled towards a plane coming at an oblique angle. That resulted the plane pulling up to the side, away. At that moment I managed to fire a well aimed brust to the fuselage bottom at plane nose. I noticed couple of puffs of black smoke coming from the [I-16, JT]engine. After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first. After that I noticed a trail of pale smoke coming from the plane.

From Uuttu's combat report excerpt above it seems plausible that the I-16 was stalling and the swaying and falling part was due to that while a sudden throttle increase to help in speed recovery might well supply a burst of black smoke in that locomotion. One would also think that noticing a MG burst hitting his plane would've encouraged Pokryshev to revv up and evade.

The pale smoke could also be exhaust related; any idea on the temperature plus other weather conditions at the time and their effect on the exhaust visibility?
Markus

[Juha Tompuri]

I've also written about that earlier:

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line. With the pierced oil radiator Of [pokryshev] hardly so many it would fly. Version with the firing from the earth to me seems more plausible, but these are only my personal impressions. But in any event, the aircraft Of [pokrysheva] (I -16 of № 1021625) was returned into the system. Therefore on the whole there are no reasons for the dispute. There is no confirmation of victory To [uuttu]. At best it damaged the aircraft Of [pokrysheva]. I do think, a question on this can be closed?

The battle started from ca.1500m height, I think that ca there one can reach the mentioned distance as the engine seemed to work at least at the beginning.

But in fact under Uuttu’s version I-16 at once started to lose height!

To be correct, Uuttu report did not mention that the damaged I-16 "started to loose" height because of the hits received. It just was reported to have "gone down" (after a quick pull up attempt)

...After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first...

, very much like stalled, as Markus suggested.

Jak-18 at refusal of the motor on planning loses for 7 km of distance of height of 1 km.

Depending on the speed.

I-16 plans worse

Worse than DC-3 http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums ... %20DC3.htm
Better than Siberian flying squirrels http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mam ... 1/_article
?

And in what you see mistake Uuttu? Attack on the part of the sun just the excellent justification of own carelessness.

Yes, Uuttu was careless, made a mistake, admitted it - so?

Probably.
But. I do not see here his mistake.

I do.

What has he recognized?

No Soviet planes before they tried to shoot him down.

I shall remind, what Shinkarenko’s group totaled 14 I-16. All of them were hidden on a background of the sun?

If they flew in a group, probably so.
Uuttu reported only seeing 5-6 of them.

Question: Uuttu flied on Fokkers?

At least I haven't read him flying a Fokker. Possibly might have tested it, though.

From the text symbiosis of pre-war knowledge of the pilot with his fighting experience is seen. Actually and Shinkarenko in the official report specifies, that the opponent tried to remove the plane from a dive twice. I do not see here any contradiction.

The end part of the Soviet report seems to match with the Uuttu one.

There all well corresponds. Except for that, shot Uuttu on the Soviet planes whether or not.

Well.. the place where the battle was fought seemed not to have been clear to the Soviet pilots, as orinetation often at Winter War.

????!!!!! WHERE? The citation, please!

Here:

...The bullet has got in an oil radiator I-16 (One more argument not for the benefit of Uutu. A radiator from below). The engine has jammed later.

And where here it is written about Uuttu?

Soviets hardly knew that Uuttu was the Finnish pilot, as they couldn't even identify the Bulldog, but the exact point where Uuttu shot Pokryshev is mentioned at the Soviet report.
Do you know more about the damage?

If all saw, that Pokryshev is damaged, then it would be favourable to inform how is. In fact Shinkarenko accompanies with a padded fighter up to the territory, i.e. does everything, that can make. Under his real official report leaves, that he has lost the navigator of a squadron for not clear reasons and where he is - does not know.

Where did Pokryshev mention to have been shot by mg fire (?) from the ground?
Does anyone else confirm his story?
Except:

..The bullet has got in an oil radiator I-16 (One more argument not for the benefit of Uutu. A radiator from below).

Shinkarenko's motives to report such - be absolutely not clear.

Maybe because in the match between 1 antique plane against 14 more modern, the outcome wasn't that glorious.

As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian.

This might also need thread of it's own, but shortly:
I think that the difference at reports probably originate from the different political system/culture.
At totalitarian systems reports were often written in a way as the superior was expected to want to read them.
At democracies the system was more honest.


Regards, Juha

[Jagala]

As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian. I now very "densely" am engaged in fights for Suomussalmi. And examples of simply enchantling lies come across me on the part of some Finnish army officers. This history has especially impressed here.

This is an off-topic comment, but the discussion has already begin to drift a bit, so...

This is how Capt. Kuisto reported it:
"Due to ample snowfall, I was forced to return 3 lorries with their crews at Hulkonmäki (a mg-lorry = 2 machine guns + 1 submachine gun, an anti-tank lorry = AT gun, an automatic rifle lorry = 1 autom. rifle group). I continued the mission with a mg-lorry (2 machine guns + 2 submachine guns) and a AA-machine gun lorry (a double AA mg and 2 submachine guns). The driving was slow, as we were forced to use the second and often the first gear. -- At Lake Kianta between Katikka and Horsmanniemi a retreating infantry column of about kilometre's length, marching two aside in fairly sparse formation, was destroyed. About 100 men managed to retreat from the column ashore to cape Horsmanniemi, because faults in the lorries prevented us from continuing to drive to the shore (of one lorry, the cooler was shot broken, and the other one suffered from engine stall due to overheating). Approximately 400 Russians were left fallen or wounded on the ice. On the return tour, when one of the lorries was being hauled, single Russians wandering here and there on the ice were destroyed, and finally a group of about 20 Russians to the west of cape Sopalanniemi.
Casualties: 1 severely wounded, who was handed over at Juurikka.
H. Kuistio"

The prose is certainly less colourful than in the passage you quoted, but as a combat report it leaves a lot of things unsaid. What were the conditions like? How light or dark was it? Was there snowfall? At what distance was the enemy engaged in a firefight? How was the strength of the enemy and the losses caused to it estimated? Could either be confirmed?

It is well known that there is a general tendency to overestimate enemy forces and enemy losses in combat. It wouldn't have been the first or the last time and indeed it would have been entirely natural for tired and relatively inexperienced soldiers to make such an error in conditions of poor visibility and in haste and in absence of an opportunity to provide an objective count of bodies etc.

However, there is IMHO very little to suggest that Capt Kuistio has resorted to enchanting or deliberate lies in order to hide his failure, his ineptness or his cowardiness or to promote himself in the eyes of his superior officers or to prove himself in his own eyes (or for any other reason).

BTW it has always been acknowledged that the pursuit of the retiring 163rd Division was a failure. The accounts that tell otherwise have their origin in the stories written by foreign correspondents in hotel rooms in Helsinki.

It must be said, though, that the battles of Suomussalmi and Raate are probably not the best cases to study if the task is to estimate the level of accuracy or the degree of embellishment in Finnish combat accounts in general. The nature of the battles and the situation in which they were fought meant that correct estimation was difficult and that there was little incitement to underestimate.

[peeved]

I'm no engine expert but couldn't the black smoke have been the result of a too rich mixture in Pokryshev's Polikarpov's engine?

I pulled towards a plane coming at an oblique angle. That resulted the plane pulling up to the side, away. At that moment I managed to fire a well aimed brust to the fuselage bottom at plane nose. I noticed couple of puffs of black smoke coming from the [I-16, JT]engine. After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first. After that I noticed a trail of pale smoke coming from the plane.

From Uuttu's combat report excerpt above it seems plausible that the I-16 was stalling and the swaying and falling part was due to that while a sudden throttle increase to help in speed recovery might well supply a burst of black smoke in that locomotion. One would also think that noticing a MG burst hitting his plane would've encouraged Pokryshev to revv up and evade.

The pale smoke could also be exhaust related; any idea on the temperature plus other weather conditions at the time and their effect on the exhaust visibility?

Re: the significance of the pale smoke from a lot more recent incident report involving a Mitsubishi T-2 at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02866.html

The report of "pale smoke" was taken to indicate either smoke or vapour from a fuel or oil leak because of engine damage...

Different fuels and oils but still...

Markus

[Slon-76]

From Uuttu's combat report excerpt above it seems plausible that the I-16 was stalling and the swaying and falling part was due to that while a sudden throttle increase to help in speed recovery might well supply a burst of black smoke in that locomotion. One would also think that noticing a MG burst hitting his plane would've encouraged Pokryshev to revv up and evade.
Markus

I must apologize, I raised the topic in vain to smoke.
The thing is that I had a bad translation of the words Uuttu. Now (thanks Juha!) I have the original text, where the history of the smoke is not so implausible.
It is charged with Uuttu removed!

[Slon-76]

I've also written about that earlier:

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line. With the pierced oil radiator Of [pokryshev] hardly so many it would fly. Version with the firing from the earth to me seems more plausible, but these are only my personal impressions. But in any event, the aircraft Of [pokrysheva] (I -16 of № 1021625) was returned into the system. Therefore on the whole there are no reasons for the dispute. There is no confirmation of victory To [uuttu]. At best it damaged the aircraft Of [pokrysheva]. I do think, a question on this can be closed?

The battle started from ca.1500m height, I think that ca there one can reach the mentioned distance as the engine seemed to work at least at the beginning.

But in fact under Uuttu’s version I-16 at once started to lose height!

To be correct, Uuttu report did not mention that the damaged I-16 "started to loose" height because of the hits received. It just was reported to have "gone down" (after a quick pull up attempt)

...After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first...

, very much like stalled, as Markus suggested.

Theme with a smoke I suggest to close. It is my mistake. Or, if to be exact, a mistake in the Russian edition.
Although, in my opinion, we have not even printed a report and some of his more recent memories.

Jak-18 at refusal of the motor on planning loses for 7 km of distance of height of 1 km.

Depending on the speed.

250 km/h

I-16 plans worse

Worse than DC-3 http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums ... %20DC3.htm
Better than http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mam ... 1/_article?

You believe, I have nothing to engage more, except for text translation about " Siberian flying squirrels "?

And in what you see mistake Uuttu? Attack on the part of the sun just the excellent justification of own carelessness.

Yes, Uuttu was careless, made a mistake, admitted it - so?

Probably.
But. I do not see here his mistake.

I do.

What has he recognized?

No Soviet planes before they tried to shoot him down.

I shall remind, what Shinkarenko’s group totaled 14 I-16. All of them were hidden on a background of the sun?

If they flew in a group, probably so.
Uuttu reported only seeing 5-6 of them.

It seems to me, that it is a unpromising theme for conversation. Each of us in Uuttu’s official report sees that wants to see. You - a recognition of a mistake, I - the self-justification.

Well.. the place where the battle was fought seemed not to have been clear to the Soviet pilots, as orinetation often at Winter War.

The place is specified very particularly.

Soviets hardly knew that Uuttu was the Finnish pilot, as they couldn't even identify the Bulldog, but the exact point where Uuttu shot Pokryshev is mentioned at the Soviet report.

Excuse, has not understood this part of your retort. Pokryshev at all did not write the official report. At least I did not see it. Type of the plane have defined as " a fighter - 1,5-wing ". (I do not know, how it in English).

Do you know more about the damage?

Only that the plane sat with the jamming motor. Has landed safely, other damages had no.

If all saw, that Pokryshev is damaged, then it would be favourable to inform how is. In fact Shinkarenko accompanies with a padded fighter up to the territory, i.e. does everything, that can make. Under his real official report leaves, that he has lost the navigator of a squadron for not clear reasons and where he is - does not know.

Where did Pokryshev mention to have been shot by mg fire (?) from the ground?
Does anyone else confirm his story?

As I already spoke, I do not know for certain, that in this occasion spoke Pokryshev. About that the plane has been struck with fire from the ground it has been specified in one of lists flight incidents. In documents made on "fresh tracks" it is spoken about:
а) ended fuel;
b) the jamming motor.

But for me it in general the minor moment. For me the main thing that all Soviet sources are unanimous in one: in attack participated only Shinkarenko’s three.
And one more. Why you think, what Uuttu has got by all means in Pokryshev’s plane? It is quite probable, that he really shot and has got on one of attacking I-16, but hits had no serious consequences.

Shinkarenko's motives to report such - be absolutely not clear.

Maybe because in the match between 1 antique plane against 14 more modern, the outcome wasn't that glorious.

And in what a problem? The Finn have shot down, and besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.
Besides you overestimate "bulldog's" "antique" a little. According to flight data, it is not far behind I-15bis.

As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian.

This might also need thread of it's own, but shortly:
I think that the difference at reports probably originate from the different political system/culture.
At totalitarian systems reports were often written in a way as the superior was expected to want to read them.
At democracies the system was more honest.

It is even not ridiculous. Do not want to try to prove the statement?
I shall try to approach on the other hand.
Put yourself on place Shinkarenko and try to explain to me how you can make so that other thirteen pilots have told the same, as you? But thus mean, that:
1. Except for you after a start commanders of other parts will be interrogated at least;
2. It is alive whether or not Pokryshev you do not know, and do not know, that he will tell if he is alive;
3. To make all these manipulations, by and large, any sense is not present.

IMHO, the sense of our discussion should be in that with a support on documents of BOTH parties to find out as could be actually. While, unfortunately, we search not for the truth, and liars.


Regards,

[Slon-76]

This is how Capt. Kuisto reported it:

Thanks for the text of the official report.
As I spoke, I now study fights under Suomussalmi 30.11.39 - 9.1.40. Naturally, from the point of view of the Soviet documents. As a whole the reasons of event there already are more - less clear to me. Probably, it will be fair to tell, that the victory of Finns has taken place not only due to their courage and successful actions, but also because of amazingly illiterate actions of the Soviet command and very low level of preparation Soviet the soldier.
By the way, in my opinion, actions of the Finnish command till December, 8 were not too thought over and rather chaotic. The opportunity to keep Suomussalmi was quite real.
I think, to you has very much carried with Siilasvuo.
About what it I... Oh, yes! In some cases very much there is no information from the Finnish party as my library is not too rich on the Finnish books about fights in Suomussalmi. Therefore soon I would like to get(start) here a branch and on this theme as " the help of club " is necessary.

However, there is IMHO very little to suggest that Capt Kuistio has resorted to enchanting or deliberate lies in order to hide his failure, his ineptness or his cowardiness or to promote himself in the eyes of his superior officers or to prove himself in his own eyes (or for any other reason).

Can you and are right. I do not know, why so have left, but it looks how looks - " very strong exaggeration ".

It must be said, though, that the battles of Suomussalmi and Raate are probably not the best cases to study if the task is to estimate the level of accuracy or the degree of embellishment in Finnish combat accounts in general. The nature of the battles and the situation in which they were fought meant that correct estimation was difficult and that there was little incitement to underestimate.

No, such task does not cost. Simply it was the answer to constant Juha’s hints to " the big honesty " Finnish reports in relation to Russian. Such hints seem to me unfair and not proved.

[Juha Tompuri]

Theme with a smoke I suggest to close. It is my mistake. Or, if to be exact, a mistake in the Russian edition.
Although, in my opinion, we have not even printed a report and some of his more recent memories.

No problem.
The Uuttu original wording about the issue could also have been read here:

At his combat report Uuttu writes the following :

...sain ammutuksi hyvin tähdätyn sarjan sen rungon alapuolelle etuosaan. Huomasin moottorin tuprahtavan pari kertaa ja mustan savun. Tämän jälkeen heilahti kone sivuttain kahdesti ja painui siivelleen alas. Näin sen jälkeen siitä tulevan vaalean savujuovan...

...I managed to fire a well aimed brust to the fuselage bottom at plane nose. I noticed couple of puffs of black smoke coming from the [I-16, JT]engine. After that the plane swayed sideways two times and fell down wing first. After that I noticed a trail of pale smoke coming from the plane

Seems that Uuttu hit where the Soviet info mentioned the damage being.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&start=30

Jak-18 at refusal of the motor on planning loses for 7 km of distance of height of 1 km.

Depending on the speed.

250 km/h

Fits quite well to the Uuttu report and Pokryshev story, as Uuttu reports the battle being fought 11.45-11.55 hours (finnish time) and Pokryshev is mentioned to have force landed 12.00-12.10 (about 30km away ).
250km/h being about 4,166.67m/min, it took about 7min 12s to cover that distance with that speed.

I-16 plans worse

Worse than DC-3 http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums ... %20DC3.htm
Better than http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mam ... 1/_article?

You believe, I have nothing to engage more, except for text translation about " Siberian flying squirrels "?

Sort of joke from my side, as one of the Finnish nicknames to I-16 was Siipiorava = (Siberian) flying squirrel

It seems to me, that it is a unpromising theme for conversation. Each of us in Uuttu’s official report sees that wants to see. You - a recognition of a mistake, I - the self-justification.

Well.. the place where the battle was fought seemed not to have been clear to the Soviet pilots, as orinetation often at Winter War.

The place is specified very particularly.

Uuttu mentioning he was patrolling SE of lake Muolaa, Shinkarenko mentioned meeting the opponent over lake Yksjärvi:

After passing along the road to [Kyurelya] city at the height of 1500 meters it is discovered the aircraft of destructive type enemy the sesquiplane above [Yusk]-[yarvi] lake. Component in the composition of the Senior Lieutenant [Shinkarenko], elder political instructor [Didenko] and Lieutenant Grigoryev produced firing hundred whom into the battle it did not enter also after opening fire it passed into the nose dive with the angle 60-70[o] was 2 attempts to derive T in the level flight but after 2[y] of attempt it again passed into the dive with the angle 60-70[o] it dived to the height of 100-75 meters where attempting to derive it was hidden in to smoke whom as a result fire shut locality to the height of 70-100 meters in which there was no visibility completely. On the assumptions of crew the aircraft cut into the forest.

or:

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line. With the pierced oil radiator Of [pokryshev] hardly so many it would fly. Version with the firing from the earth to me seems more plausible, but these are only my personal impressions.

(babelfish) http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&start=30

Soviets hardly knew that Uuttu was the Finnish pilot, as they couldn't even identify the Bulldog, but the exact point where Uuttu shot Pokryshev is mentioned at the Soviet report.

Excuse, has not understood this part of your retort. Pokryshev at all did not write the official report. At least I did not see it.

No report

I Type of the plane have defined as " a fighter - 1,5-wing ". (I do not know, how it in English).

sesquiplane? but as Uuttu managed to identify the attackers as I-16, how come the 14 attackers (having a way more time for it) could not name Uuttu flying Bulldog ?

But for me it in general the minor moment. For me the main thing that all Soviet sources are unanimous in one: in attack participated only Shinkarenko’s three.

...and Pokryshev,who was hit, not belonging to that group...

And one more. Why you think, what Uuttu has got by all means in Pokryshev’s plane? It is quite probable, that he really shot and has got on one of attacking I-16, but hits had no serious consequences.

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

besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.

What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?

Besides you overestimate "bulldog's" "antique" a little. According to flight data, it is not far behind I-15bis.

Bulldog having half the fire power of I-15bis.

As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian.

This might also need thread of it's own, but shortly:
I think that the difference at reports probably originate from the different political system/culture.
At totalitarian systems reports were often written in a way as the superior was expected to want to read them.
At democracies the system was more honest.

It is even not ridiculous. Do not want to try to prove the statement?
I shall try to approach on the other hand.
Put yourself on place Shinkarenko and try to explain to me how you can make so that other thirteen pilots have told the same, as you? But thus mean, that:
1. Except for you after a start commanders of other parts will be interrogated at least;
2. It is alive whether or not Pokryshev you do not know, and do not know, that he will tell if he is alive;
3. To make all these manipulations, by and large, any sense is not present.

what did Shinkarenko official report tell about Pokryshev at that battle?

IMHO, the sense of our discussion should be in that with a support on documents of BOTH parties to find out as could be actually. While, unfortunately, we search not for the truth, and liars.

I am after the truth, but not all the info I've seen, seem to correlate with it.

Regrards, Juha

[Slon-76]

Jak-18 at refusal of the motor on planning loses for 7 km of distance of height of 1 km.

Depending on the speed.

250 km/h

Fits quite well to the Uuttu report and Pokryshev story, as Uuttu reports the battle being fought 11.45-11.55 hours (finnish time) and Pokryshev is mentioned to have force landed 12.00-12.10 (about 30km away ).
250km/h being about 4,166.67m/min, it took about 7min 12s to cover that distance with that speed.

It is difficult to judge... Nevertheless " the time plug " makes from 5 till 25 minutes...

Sort of joke from my side, as one of the Finnish nicknames to I-16 was Siipiorava = (Siberian) flying squirrel

Funny. I did not know it. And how still named I-16? (except «Rata»)

Uuttu mentioning he was patrolling SE of lake Muolaa, Shinkarenko mentioned meeting the opponent over lake Yksjärvi

And in what a problem? Yksjärvi is to an east / southeast from Muolanjarvi. The area of fight is specified precisely enough. Within the limits of 5-6 kilometers.

Excuse, has not understood this part of your retort. Pokryshev at all did not write the official report. At least I did not see it.

No report

I do not know, wrote probably. Simply this document did not come across me, it is possible he and was not kept.

I Type of the plane have defined as " a fighter - 1,5-wing ". (I do not know, how it in English).

sesquiplane? but as Uuttu managed to identify the attackers as I-16, how come the 14 attackers (having a way more time for it) could not name Uuttu flying Bulldog ?

To tell the truth, I do not understand, what basic value has this circumstance? "Bulldog" does not approach under given Shinkarenko definition?

But for me it in general the minor moment. For me the main thing that all Soviet sources are unanimous in one: in attack participated only Shinkarenko’s three.

...and Pokryshev,who was hit, not belonging to that group...

Alas, did not belong. If belonged - there would be no subject for dispute.

And one more. Why you think, what Uuttu has got by all means in Pokryshev’s plane? It is quite probable, that he really shot and has got on one of attacking I-16, but hits had no serious consequences.

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

How we can know it for certain? Besides that he has got in the plane, he of anything to tell could not any more. "Ishaki" came back and with much more serious damages.

besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.

What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?

I do not know. I assume, that it were pilots from Pokryshev's "three". Pilots young, inexperienced. Could become nervous, having lost the leader.

Besides you overestimate "bulldog's" "antique" a little. According to flight data, it is not far behind I-15bis.

Bulldog having half the fire power of I-15bis.

Fokker too. We recognize its "antiquarian"?

As a whole, I think, that "have a little embellished" the validity both sides. Forgive, but I nevertheless do not believe in general honesty of Finns in comparison with Russian.

This might also need thread of it's own, but shortly:
I think that the difference at reports probably originate from the different political system/culture.
At totalitarian systems reports were often written in a way as the superior was expected to want to read them.
At democracies the system was more honest.

It is even not ridiculous. Do not want to try to prove the statement?
I shall try to approach on the other hand.
Put yourself on place Shinkarenko and try to explain to me how you can make so that other thirteen pilots have told the same, as you? But thus mean, that:
1. Except for you after a start commanders of other parts will be interrogated at least;
2. It is alive whether or not Pokryshev you do not know, and do not know, that he will tell if he is alive;
3. To make all these manipulations, by and large, any sense is not present.

what did Shinkarenko official report tell about Pokryshev at that battle?

Anything. Only that Pokryshev has been lost from a kind in area Siesjarvi.
Nevertheless I would like to see the answer to this offer:

Put yourself on place Shinkarenko...

IMHO, the sense of our discussion should be in that with a support on documents of BOTH parties to find out as could be actually. While, unfortunately, we search not for the truth, and liars.

I am after the truth, but not all the info I've seen, seem to correlate with it.

It seems to me, that your mistake that you think that know where the truth.

Regrards,

[Juha Tompuri]

Sort of joke from my side, as one of the Finnish nicknames to I-16 was Siipiorava = (Siberian) flying squirrel

Funny. I did not know it. And how still named I-16? (except «Rata»)

Can't remember anyhing else Finnish at the moment.

Uuttu mentioning he was patrolling SE of lake Muolaa, Shinkarenko mentioned meeting the opponent over lake Yksjärvi

And in what a problem? Yksjärvi is to an east / southeast from Muolanjarvi. The area of fight is specified precisely enough. Within the limits of 5-6 kilometers.

Yes, I know where Yksjärvi is , but it wasn't (minimum)35-40km from frontline that day.

I attentively again examined facts known to me. In principle, is only words To [uuttu] against the words [Shinkarenko]. It is possible that [Uuttu] actually fired [Pokrysheva], but this occurred as the minimum in 35-40 kilometers from the front line.

as Uuttu managed to identify the attackers as I-16, how come the 14 attackers (having a way more time for it) could not name Uuttu flying Bulldog ?

To tell the truth, I do not understand, what basic value has this circumstance? "Bulldog" does not approach under given Shinkarenko definition?

The "value" is the Shinkarenko report credibility in details.

And one more. Why you think, what Uuttu has got by all means in Pokryshev’s plane? It is quite probable, that he really shot and has got on one of attacking I-16, but hits had no serious consequences.

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

How we can know it for certain?

If not certain, how about: "beyound reasonable doubt"?

besides Pokryshev has not returned two more planes, sat down on other air stations.

What was the reason of the oyher two planes not reaching the home base?

I do not know. I assume, that it were pilots from Pokryshev's "three". Pilots young, inexperienced. Could become nervous, having lost the leader.

Did they report what they had seen happening to their leader?
Or didn't they see it?

Besides you overestimate "bulldog's" "antique" a little. According to flight data, it is not far behind I-15bis.

Bulldog having half the fire power of I-15bis.

Fokker too. We recognize its "antiquarian"?

I-15bis and Fokker D.21 had both four mg's (one Fokker having 2x20mm + 2 mg's for a while).
Bulldog having two.

Nevertheless I would like to see the answer to this offer:

Put yourself on place Shinkarenko...

I don't know...I find it a bit speculative.

IMHO, the sense of our discussion should be in that with a support on documents of BOTH parties to find out as could be actually. While, unfortunately, we search not for the truth, and liars.

I am after the truth, but not all the info I've seen, seem to correlate with it.

It seems to me, that your mistake that you think that know where the truth.

If you mean did Uuttu manage to damage Pokryshev plane or not, I think I know enough.


Regards, Juha