Bristol Blenheim

[Juha Tompuri]

The Fokkers were at the airfield when the Soviet bombers bombed (from unknown? altitude), then they chased the bombers and reported to have damaged them:

I would call it catching them even from unfavourable starting point.

Nope. (And they also had encounters with bombers when they airborne.)

Nope?
The Fokkers started when the Soviet bombers dropped their loads at Turku.
The Soviet Bombers had then height advantage.
Even so the Fokkers were able to catch the bombers and claim they had damaged them.

In both cases

?
There are three cases mentioned - both out of three?

.Karhunen even specifically mentioned that Fokker was unable to catch them.

According to you he did mention:

...Chased two SB-bombers with vääp. Rimminen past Utö close to Baltisk without being able to destroy them. Blacksmiths (peltiseppä) at Baltisk sure had their work cut out for them though...

Which kinda makes your opinion of the definition of 'catching' rather meaningless.

See your own translation above.

All this started at your claim (a reminder posted couple of my posts ago) Blenheim top speed being an average light bomber class during Winter War era.
Being average means that there are about equal number of both faster and slower types at service at that given period of time.
I know a lot of slower types at service at that moment, but where is the faster lot?
You have mentioned as candidates the Bloch MB 170 prototypes, MB 174 reconnaissance plane and DB-7B light bombers.
As you might understand the "slower lot" is pretty much bigger.

Average top speed for bombers that fought in the Winter War.

The discussion has not been about bombers at Winter War, but light bombers at service in general during Winter War era.

I added the contemporary Do 17 there for a good measure. And two newcomers to give an idea what the 'current state of the art' level was.

As above - you sure would have mentioned if you ment something else than you wrote.

Given that there were still lot of biplanes in use in late 1930s it wouldn't be proper to compare Blenheim against such unless you deliberately want the results to be skewed in favor of Blenheim.

No such exceptions have been mentioned before.
Biplanes were fairly common at different nations air forces during the time period in question.
It's proper to count all the combat planes that fit to the category and era of this thread side-track.

In similar way Fokker had fairly good performance when compared against all the fighters in use at mid 1930s. If we ignore the fact that we just compared it against whole lot of pre-war fighters, some of which were still barely post-WW1 era aircrafts and most were biplanes. While if we place Fokker into late 1930s fighters 'group' we can see that it had clearly less than stellar performance.

That issue is not adviceable to discuss at this thread.
Feel free to start a new one.


Regards, Juha

[Vaeltaja]

Nope?
The Fokkers started when the Soviet bombers dropped their loads at Turku.
The Soviet Bombers had then height advantage.
Even so the Fokkers were able to catch the bombers and claim they had damaged them.

Once Fokkers got to gun range - even that Karhunen admits he shot well outside of gun range - bombers at full throttle outdistanced the slow fighters.

There are three cases mentioned - both out of three?

Both - as one of the cases was a low level chase which Fokkers lost as well. In that one there really is no ambiguity concerning time it took for Fokker to climb.

See your own translation above.

Shooting at too long range with rifle caliber machine guns did not cause any severe damage to the bomber. As per Karhunen's book they were again shooting well beyond any effective gun range. And you conveniently ignored the following sentence in the translation which pretty much explained it: It became apparent, that Fokker was not fast enough to engage enemy bombers let alone enemy fighters. (Kävi selväksi, ettei Fokkerin nopeus enää riittänyt pommikoineille saati sitten hävittäjille). Please do not try overanalyze statements you remove out of their context.

The discussion has not been about bombers at Winter War, but light bombers at service in general during Winter War era.

No. This discussion has been about Blenheim performance. Later as certain persons claimed that Blenheim was faster than any other and dragged performance estimates of several aircrafts into the discussion the thing got muddled. However if you are claiming that the discussion is about light bombers in service during Winter War era then either you somehow misunderstood or then are intentionally misrepresenting on what has been discussed. Whole 'SB-episode' on this thread started on your request on more information on fast SB bombers.

No such exceptions have been mentioned before.
Biplanes were fairly common at different nations air forces during the time period in question.
It's proper to count all the combat planes that fit to the category and era of this thread side-track.

Lets see.. So far we have been comparing bombers which have been claimed to be fast light bombers. By what logic should the slow biplane bombers be added into the comparison? To make the late 1930 twin engined monoplane designs look better? All Do 17, Blenheim and SB-2 were purpose build to be fast light bombers in comparison to the rest of the bombers. Comparing these against something else than other aircraft classed as fast light bomber is an exercise in futility which does not serve any practical purpose.

That issue is not adviceable to discuss at this thread.
Feel free to start a new one.

'That issue' is completely relevant to the topic since you started dragging in the comparison with all designs which has nothing to do with the performance of the Blenheim.

[Juha Tompuri]

Nope?
The Fokkers started when the Soviet bombers dropped their loads at Turku.
The Soviet Bombers had then height advantage.
Even so the Fokkers were able to catch the bombers and claim they had damaged them.

Once Fokkers got to gun range - even that Karhunen admits he shot well outside of gun range - bombers at full throttle outdistanced the slow fighters.

Is it possible that you have now mixed up the events of 4th and 2th Feb ?

There are three cases mentioned - both out of three?

Both - as one of the cases was a low level chase which Fokkers lost as well. In that one there really is no ambiguity concerning time it took for Fokker to climb.

Yes, but at that case, 3rd Feb, even sucesfull, the enemy bombers were DB-3's, - pretty fast planes also in reality .
For some strange reason you didn't mention there that the bombers were not of the type in question,SB 2M-103U, but fast DB-3's, Finnish pilots at the book text claiming to have shot down every plane. (seems that one got away quite seriously damaged)
I would call this quite selective quoting as you ignored to translate the relevant parts, and also a bit dishonest as trying to "change" the enemy bomber type.

Actually it also seems that either/both 2th and 4th Feb encounters were with DB-3's,
So the quotes of Karhunen book are mainly or total useless source to my question about the SB 2M-103U planes.

As per Karhunen's book they were again shooting well beyond any effective gun range. And you conveniently ignored the following sentence in the translation which pretty much explained it: It became apparent, that Fokker was not fast enough to engage enemy bombers let alone enemy fighters. (Kävi selväksi, ettei Fokkerin nopeus enää riittänyt pommikoineille saati sitten hävittäjille).

As explained before - that mention was after the 4th Feb battle - probably with DB-3's.

Please do not try overanalyze statements you remove out of their context.

Could you be more specific, something like:

Some of the combat - in later section at 7th and 9th of February - is mentioned as happening at or above 4000 m forcing pilots to use oxygen masks on most interceptions. But such things were not mentioned with descriptions of earlier operations.

If sticking to the truth, Karhunen mentions the enemy flying height being 3000-7000m.
7000m being mentioned (C.E. Bruun, Lentolaivue 26) for instance the Soviet bombing height against Turku as to which it was increased when a flight (5 planes?) of Bristol Bulldog fighters (probably also AAA, JT) came to defend the city about two months before the Fokkers.

The discussion has not been about bombers at Winter War, but light bombers at service in general during Winter War era.

No. This discussion has been about Blenheim performance.

The disussion side-tracked to it.

Later as certain persons claimed that Blenheim was faster than any other and dragged performance estimates of several aircrafts into the discussion the thing got muddled. However if you are claiming that the discussion is about light bombers in service during Winter War era then either you somehow misunderstood or then are intentionally misrepresenting on what has been discussed.

The wikipedia etc.speculations about Finnish Blenheim performance led to that side-track.

Whole 'SB-episode' on this thread started on your request on more information on fast SB bombers.

Yes, but your selective quoting is against both what I earlier posted:

...just trying to steer this discussion honest and fact-based.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1500876

No such exceptions have been mentioned before.
Biplanes were fairly common at different nations air forces during the time period in question.
It's proper to count all the combat planes that fit to the category and era of this thread side-track.

Lets see.. So far we have been comparing bombers which have been claimed to be fast light bombers. By what logic should the slow biplane bombers be added into the comparison? To make the late 1930 twin engined monoplane designs look better?

No.
It is because of your sometimes a bit fuzzy looking logic, which for instance here made me comment and ask you about details of your strange claim:

Blenheim does not appear to be exceptional aircraft in any sense for a light bomber of its era

Pretty fast it was.

Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers.

Others?
When bought, and also after that Blenheim seems to have compared well against the "others".

As an aircraft it was not exceptional nor was it outstanding by the Winter War. More like average for a light bomber design.

from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1500638 on

All Do 17, Blenheim and SB-2 were purpose build to be fast light bombers in comparison to the rest of the bombers. Comparing these against something else than other aircraft classed as fast light bomber is an exercise in futility which does not serve any practical purpose.

Well... that was your initial choise, reminders above.

That issue is not adviceable to discuss at this thread.
Feel free to start a new one.

'That issue' is completely relevant to the topic since you started dragging in the comparison with all designs which has nothing to do with the performance of the Blenheim.

As above.

Regards, Juha

[Vaeltaja]

In other than Finnish test results DB-3(b) has been rated slower than SB-2 M-103(u). And i did not omit any mentions of the type of the bombers. Karhunen did not identify them in every engagement in the book - some were left with only a reference as it being enemy or enemy bomber.

As for Feb 3 events i did not mention those as book made it clear the fighters were able to surprise bombers. There was no chase. There was no need to catch the bombers as Fokkers were already at attack position. There is rather big difference when trying to chase down a plane at a distance or trying to take out a plane that you have managed to surprise.

My copy Karhunen's book is in bad condition. Its currently held together with ducting tape so i apologize for not checking the bomber altitude from it.

Me: Blenheim does not appear to be exceptional aircraft in any sense for a light bomber of its era
..
Me: Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers.
..
JT: When bought, and also after that Blenheim seems to have compared well against the "others".
..
Me: As an aircraft it was not exceptional nor was it outstanding by the Winter War. More like average for a light bomber design.

There is no fuzzy logic. Blenheim compared well against other light bombers when the design was initially ordered for FAF in 1936. However by the Winter War it had lost the advantage - or rather other light bombers had caught up with Blenheim. Term 'of the era' in there is vague, that is true, but i tried to refer to Winter War with it. By which time Blenheim was no longer outstanding nor exceptional.

Is it possible that you have now mixed up the events of 4th and 2th Feb ?

Käskyn mukaisesti lensimme helmikuun toisena päivänä Utin kautta Turkuun Littoistenjärven jäälle, minne muodostimme tukikohdan. Jo tulopäivänä annettiin polttoainetäydennyksen jälkeen hälytys. Lensimme kohti Ahvenanmaata, missä ilmoituksen mukaan oli suuri vihollismuodostelma. Tapasimmekin 23 pommikoneen muodostaman osaston. Ammuin kolmesta koneesta jäähdytysnesteet suihkuamaan.

Havaittuaan hyvässä näkyvyydessä hävittäjämme kääntyivät viholliskoneet Baltiskin suuntaan ja työnsivät täyden kaasun päälle. Yrityksistä huolimatta en pääsyt tarpeeksi läheiseen tuntumaan, vaan joiduin ampumaan liian etäältä, jolloin tulitusteho ei riittänyt pudotukseen. Toiset koneemme eivät päässeet niinkään lähelle, että olisi edes kannattanut ampua.

Nope. Bombers were not identified and they were not caught.

Actually it also seems that either/both 2th and 4th Feb encounters were with DB-3's,

Karhunen identifies the bombers of the 4th Feb explicitly as SB-bombers. Which were again able to outdistance Fokkers.

As explained before - that mention was after the 4th Feb battle - probably with DB-3's.

See above.

Could you be more specific, something like:

Let me highlight the relevant sections of the translation.

Third on p. 19, rough translation.. ...Heard a lot rumble from Turku without air warning or ground control information... ...Chased two SB-bombers with vääp. Rimminen past Utö close to Baltisk without being able to destroy them. Blacksmiths (peltiseppä) at Baltisk sure had their work cut out for them though. It became apparent, that Fokker was not fast enough to engage enemy bombers let alone enemy fighters. On return trip we encountered a formation of 20 I-153 fighters which we attacked and fired at two closest targets and then immediately disengaged from combat due enemy's superior numbers without verifying the results of the attack.

You selective quoted a single line between the sentences with i) identify the bomber type ( something you immediately contested ) ii) make it clear that Fokker was unable to catch the bombers. In short the excerpt clearly identified that SB bombers were able to outdistance the Fokkers but you instead selectively took a single sentence out of the context and tried to run indepth analysis based on that.

[peeved]

Some of the speed difference between SB-M-103 in Finnish and Soviet tests might be due to weight and version differences. According to the data provided by Martti Kujansuu at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... +#p1500504 the SB had a 1000 kg bomb load and 385 km/h speed whereas according to the Soviet figures from Air Forces Scientific Research Institute tests at
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/planes.shtml the bomb load was 500 kg and speed at altitude 413 km/h . One would also think that when not in action e.g. a SB dorsal turret would induce more drag than the earlier glazed-over gun position.

Markus

[Mangrove]

Some of the speed difference between SB-M-103 in Finnish and Soviet tests might be due to weight and version differences.

The Finnish tests were flown with two different weights; 6605 kg (1071 kg of load) and 7230 kg (1696 kg). Corresponding maximum speeds at 0 and 3250 meters were 315/290 km/h and 370/330 km/h. The "SB-13" momenteraly archived 378 km/h at four kilometers (with 2200 rpm/900 mmHg?) and 385 km/h with 2450 rpm.

The bomb load I indicated earlier has nothing to do with this test; it is the maximum practical combat load according to Finnish tests.

[peeved]

Thanks for the Finnish test figures. In the light of that data the Soviet 413 km/h appear to have involved a rather light SB at a 6348 kg loaded weight. That might involve a lighter base plane or e.g. difference between expectations of a typical mission profile between the Finns and Soviets.

Markus

[Mangrove]

That might involve a lighter base plane or e.g. difference between expectations of a typical mission profile between the Finns and Soviets.

6348 - 5534 (weight of the plane, crew and ammunition) = 814 kg of load
814 - 500 (bombs) = 314 kg of fuel
----------------
Avgas = c. 0.72 kg/l, so around 436 liters of fuel. SB consumes 296 liters per hour during cruise. Thus the range with that loading will be 88 minutes or around 400-500 kilometers.

[Juha Tompuri]

As for Feb 3 events i did not mention those as book made it clear the fighters were able to surprise bombers. There was no chase. There was no need to catch the bombers as Fokkers were already at attack position. There is rather big difference when trying to chase down a plane at a distance or trying to take out a plane that you have managed to surprise.

The posting of yours about the 3rd Feb events extremely misleading and does not correspond to the events Karhunen writes at his book.
Forgery or very very sloppy work from you.
Don't know which, but as I have at this thread mentioned several times before - honesty and basing on facts are being principles here. I'll remind you still one more time.
So here your selective and many ways incorrect answer to my question about SB 2M-103U planes at Finnish front during Winter War:

Second on p. 18, rough translation.. (Pekka Kokko's report) ...I shot one burst into bomber on the right wing of the formation which ylik. Nissinen and res.vänr. Ilveskorpi shot at as well but from long distance as enemy planes were considerably (huomattavasti) faster than us. We chased the bombers at low level (jään pinnassa) but as distance increased we turned back

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1501555

Actually Karhunen mentions (p. 18) there that Finnish Fokkers met three planes of type DB-3 and he (Kokko's report) claims that three planes out of three were eventually shot down.

And i did not omit any mentions of the type of the bombers.

See above and at your book or from my scan at the end of my post.


.

Me: Blenheim does not appear to be exceptional aircraft in any sense for a light bomber of its era
..
Me: Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers.
..
JT: When bought, and also after that Blenheim seems to have compared well against the "others".
..
Me: As an aircraft it was not exceptional nor was it outstanding by the Winter War. More like average for a light bomber design.

There is no fuzzy logic. Blenheim compared well against other light bombers when the design was initially ordered for FAF in 1936. However by the Winter War it had lost the advantage - or rather other light bombers had caught up with Blenheim. Term 'of the era' in there is vague, that is true, but i tried to refer to Winter War with it. By which time Blenheim was no longer outstanding nor exceptional.

Fuzzy, as you now try to claim something other than when you started painting yourself into a corner.

Is it possible that you have now mixed up the events of 4th and 2th Feb ?

Käskyn mukaisesti lensimme helmikuun toisena päivänä Utin kautta Turkuun Littoistenjärven jäälle, minne muodostimme tukikohdan. Jo tulopäivänä annettiin polttoainetäydennyksen jälkeen hälytys. Lensimme kohti Ahvenanmaata, missä ilmoituksen mukaan oli suuri vihollismuodostelma. Tapasimmekin 23 pommikoneen muodostaman osaston. Ammuin kolmesta koneesta jäähdytysnesteet suihkuamaan.

Havaittuaan hyvässä näkyvyydessä hävittäjämme kääntyivät viholliskoneet Baltiskin suuntaan ja työnsivät täyden kaasun päälle. Yrityksistä huolimatta en pääsyt tarpeeksi läheiseen tuntumaan, vaan joiduin ampumaan liian etäältä, jolloin tulitusteho ei riittänyt pudotukseen. Toiset koneemme eivät päässeet niinkään lähelle, että olisi edes kannattanut ampua.

Nope. Bombers were not identified and they were not caught.

First on p. 17, rough translation.. Met formation of 23 bombers. I managed to start coolant leaks on three aircrafts with my firing. After detecting our flight in good weather the enemy bombers turned towards Baltisk and went to full throttle. Despite of attempts I couldn't get close enough for a kill instead I was forced to shoot from long distance. Other planes in the wing didn't even start firing.

Second on p. 18, rough translation.. ...I shot one burst into bomber on the right wing which ylik. Nissinen and res.vänr. Ilveskorpi shot as well but from long distance as enemy planes were considerably (huomattavasti) faster than us. We chased the bombers at low level (jään pinnassa) but as distance increased we turned back.

Third on p. 19, rough translation.. ...Heard a lot rumble from Turku without air warning or ground control information... ...Chased two SB-bombers with vääp. Rimminen past Utö close to Baltisk without being able to destroy them. Blacksmiths (peltiseppä) at Baltisk sure had their work cut out for them though. It became apparent, that Fokker was not fast enough to engage enemy bombers let alone enemy fighters. On return trip we encountered a formation of 20 I-153 fighters which we attacked and fired at two closest targets and then immediately disengaged from combat due enemy's superior numbers without verifying the results of the attack.
..
On defensive engagements on February 7th and 9th the slow speed of our planes (Fokker D XXI) became a bitter lesson. With even 30 kph faster planes we could have had a real catch. Escaping DB bombers were just too fast for us.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1501555

Nope?
The Fokkers started when the Soviet bombers dropped their loads at Turku.
The Soviet Bombers had then height advantage.
Even so the Fokkers were able to catch the bombers and claim they had damaged them.

Once Fokkers got to gun range - even that Karhunen admits he shot well outside of gun range - bombers at full throttle outdistanced the slow fighters.

Is it possible that you have now mixed up the events of 4th and 2th Feb ?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1502332

You seemed to have mixed up in answering to my post about 4th Feb the events the distance and throttle part from the 2nd Feb report.
See above or at the unaltered information at the attachment at the end of my post.

Actually it also seems that either/both 2th and 4th Feb encounters were with DB-3's,

Karhunen identifies the bombers of the 4th Feb explicitly as SB-bombers. Which were again able to outdistance Fokkers.

As explained before - that mention was after the 4th Feb battle - probably with DB-3's.

See above.

Could you be more specific, something like:

Let me highlight the relevant sections of the translation.

Third on p. 19, rough translation.. ...Heard a lot rumble from Turku without air warning or ground control information... ...Chased two SB-bombers with vääp. Rimminen past Utö close to Baltisk without being able to destroy them. Blacksmiths (peltiseppä) at Baltisk sure had their work cut out for them though. It became apparent, that Fokker was not fast enough to engage enemy bombers let alone enemy fighters. On return trip we encountered a formation of 20 I-153 fighters which we attacked and fired at two closest targets and then immediately disengaged from combat due enemy's superior numbers without verifying the results of the attack.

You selective quoted a single line between the sentences with i) identify the bomber type ( something you immediately contested ) ii) make it clear that Fokker was unable to catch the bombers. In short the excerpt clearly identified that SB bombers were able to outdistance the Fokkers but you instead selectively took a single sentence out of the context and tried to run indepth analysis based on that.

The key issue here as was with the 3rd Feb events is this:

Let me highlight the relevant sections of the translation.

The translation (itself good/exellent language, but highly selective) and the relevant parts
As can be seen from what Karhunen wrote that the Fokkers were at the base when the bombers bombed Turku and they then started to climb and pursuit the bombers, the result was that the bombers caught up and several (4+?) were damaged and one claimed to have been shot down by WO Virta.
Officially that plane was mentioned to have been of type DB-3 (Keskinen etc, Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 3 Fokker D.XXI)


Regards, Juha


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

edited 030910

[Vaeltaja]

The posting of yours about the 3rd Feb events extremely misleading and does not correspond to the events Karhunen writes at his book.
Forgery or very very sloppy work from you.
Don't know which, but as I have at this thread mentioned several times before - honesty and basing on facts are being principles here. I'll remind you still one more time.
So here your selective and many ways incorrect answer to my question about SB 2M-103U planes at Finnish front during Winter War:

Actually Karhunen mentions (p. 18) there that Finnish Fokkers met three planes of type DB-3 and he (Kokko's report) claims that three planes out of three were eventually shot down.

Kokko reported that they located the bombers while being 1000 m above and only slightly aside from the bombers. In other words they had perfect attack positions, and were able to surprise the bomber formation. However regardless of this advantage and ability to turn considerable amount of altitude into speed the bomber(s) surviving the initial clash were able to outdistance the slow Fokkers. All i omitted was the attack which had nothing to do with aircraft performance. All that it proves is that Fokkers were unable to even catch bomber flying with damaged engines.

As for DB-3s in there. Thanks. I somehow had missed that. Had been under the impression that some of the bombers were DB-3s but it seems all of the mentioned bombers on 3rd were DB-3s.

Fuzzy, as you now try to claim something other than when you started painting yourself into a corner.

There was nothing fuzzy. Only thing fuzzy there has been your interpretation or translation. Read the post(s) carefully and this time with thought.

The translation (itself good/exellent language, but highly selective) and the relevant parts
As can be seen from what Karhunen wrote that the Fokkers were at the base when the bombers bombed Turku and they then started to climb and pursuit the bombers, the result was that the bombers caught up and several were damaged and one claimed to have been shot down.
Officially that plane was mentioned to have been of type DB-3 (Keskinen etc, Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 3 Fokker D.XXI)

And no. You are deducting from the Karhunen's report without slightest bit of evidence that rest of the Fokker interceptions on 4th would have been chases. This has not been said. It has not even been implicated. All that is said is some Fokkers in some conditions managed to shoot down a bomber. There is nothing there which would even allow for any kind of debate on the matter. Karhunen he says he he and Rimminen chased 2 SB-bombers but were those were able to outdistance them. Not a single word is spent on how or under what conditions the rest of engagement on that day happened - only results.

You also seem to be suggesting that since the dropped aircraft was of DB-3 type then the rest of the bombers - even if those may have belonged to separate formations - would have been of the same type.

You seemed to have mixed up in answering to my post about 4th Feb the events the distance and throttle part from the 2nd Feb report.
See above or at the unaltered information at the attachment at the end of my post.

Not sure what does it matter - in both cases the results were identical. Bombers were able to outdistance the Fokkers.

[Juha Tompuri]

Even you too seem to finally now understood that this 3rd Feb combat was against DB-bombers, couple corrections for the still remaining untrue assumptions.

Kokko reported that they located the bombers while being 1000 m above and only slightly aside from the bombers. In other words they had perfect attack positions, and were able to surprise the bomber formation. However regardless of this advantage and ability to turn considerable amount of altitude into speed the bomber(s) surviving the initial clash were able to outdistance the slow Fokkers.

Bombers? survining the initial clash being able to outdistance Fokkers?
Not bombers but a bomber.

All i omitted was the attack which had nothing to do with aircraft performance.

How about the plane type?
Remember:

i did not omit any mentions of the type of the bombers.

All that it proves is that Fokkers were unable to even catch bomber flying with damaged engines.

Do we know about that both engines damage?

Fuzzy, as you now try to claim something other than when you started painting yourself into a corner.

There was nothing fuzzy. Only thing fuzzy there has been your interpretation or translation. Read the post(s) carefully and this time with thought.

You have expressed youself clearly enough.
A jewel:

Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&start=60

As can be seen from what Karhunen wrote that the Fokkers were at the base when the bombers bombed Turku and they then started to climb and pursuit the bombers, the result was that the bombers caught up and several were damaged and one claimed to have been shot down.
Officially that plane was mentioned to have been of type DB-3 (Keskinen etc, Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 3 Fokker D.XXI)

And no. You are deducting from the Karhunen's report without slightest bit of evidence that rest of the Fokker interceptions on 4th would have been chases. This has not been said. It has not even been implicated. All that is said is some Fokkers in some conditions managed to shoot down a bomber. There is nothing there which would even allow for any kind of debate on the matter. Karhunen he says he he and Rimminen chased 2 SB-bombers but were those were able to outdistance them. Not a single word is spent on how or under what conditions the rest of engagement on that day happened - only results.

At the part of Karhunen book you selectively didn't translate Karhunen does not mention that any of the Fokers would have been airborne before the Soviet bombers had started bombing the city direction. He does mention that the first Fokkers then took off and started curving towards Turku.
That is at least three planes.

You also seem to be suggesting that since the dropped aircraft was of DB-3 type then the rest of the bombers - even if those may have belonged to separate formations - would have been of the same type.

I'm not suggesting, just pointing out one fact of the events.
Virta recognized the plane he claimed to have been shot down at that battle as DB-3.

You seemed to have mixed up in answering to my post about 4th Feb the events the distance and throttle part from the 2nd Feb report.
See above or at the unaltered information at the attachment at the end of my post.

Not sure what does it matter

What does mixing up things matter?
A lot.
That makes your posts unreliable.

in both cases the results were identical. Bombers were able to outdistance the Fokkers.

Did Karhunen write so?


Regards, Juha

[Vaeltaja]

Bombers? survining the initial clash being able to outdistance Fokkers?
Not bombers but a bomber.

How about the plane type?
Remember:

You did read what i posted in previous post did you? Or are you just incapable of understanding it? In any other place that could be taken as something very close to flaming or trolling - as being intentionally ignorant - but since you are an admin or a mod here i take its just day-to-day behavior here.

Do we know about that both engines damage?

We know it landed due engine damage. Whether just one or two were damaged it does not change the situation that Fokkers remained unable to catch even limping enemy bird.

You have expressed youself clearly enough.
A jewel:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=169301&start=60

Same as above... The mention 'its era' is vague but i did not make allegation - like you claim - that Blenheim would have been an average at the time when it was initially purchased in 1936. However by 1939 Blenheim was no longer outstanding or exceptional aircraft. Other bombers were equally fast or even faster (with rather intriguing exception of the Finnish results) by that time. I was referring to the bombers use in Winter War and the qualitative differences between light bombers during that conflict.

At the part of Karhunen book you selectively didn't translate Karhunen does not mention that any of the Fokers would have been airborne before the Soviet bombers had started bombing the city direction. He does mention that the first Fokkers then took off and started curving towards Turku.
That is at least three planes.

Yes. But the engagement described in the book consists only of two Fokkers chase of SB bombers. Again rest of the engagement, where it happened, how it happened remain unknown. If you want to make allegations, deductions, fantasies or what-ever on how the engagements of the other Fokkers unfolded that day it is completely your choice. It is however irrelevant to the chase Karhunen described.

I'm not suggesting, just pointing out one fact of the events.
Virta recognized the plane he claimed to have been shot down at that battle as DB-3.

And how exactly would that be relevant to the chase of SB-bombers that Karhunen describes?

What does mixing up things matter?
A lot.
That makes your posts unreliable.

Did Karhunen write so?

Yes.

2nd: Yrityksistä huolimatta en päässyt tarpeeksi läheiseen tuntumaan, vaan jouduin ampumaan liian etäältä, jolloin tulitusteho ei riittänyt pudotukseen.

4th: Ajoin vääpeli Rimmisen kanssa takaa kahta SB-pommittajaa Utön ohi lähelle Baltiskia saamatta kuitenkaan karkulaisia tuhotuksi.

No matter how you turn it in both chases - on 2nd and 4th - Fokkers remained unable to catch the bombers. In both cases the bombers were able to escape from the Fokkers.

[Slon-76]

All i omitted was the attack which had nothing to do with aircraft performance.

How about the plane type?

Tell to me date, time and a place, and I, probably, shall tell to you type and even regiment.

[Vaeltaja]

As for location.. Turku or the surrounding area (South-Western Finland)

Date: From 2nd of February to 4th of February

On 2nd.. Some time after the morning
On 3rd.. 'Afternoon'
On 4th.. No time given

[Juha Tompuri]

I'm not suggesting, just pointing out one fact of the events.
Virta recognized the plane he claimed to have been shot down at that battle as DB-3.

And how exactly would that be relevant to the chase of SB-bombers that Karhunen describes?

Flight was the same and there is a probability of pilot misidentification, and the planes being of same type.
Also there is a question how relevant source of information Karhunen is.

As for location.. Turku or the surrounding area (South-Western Finland)

More probably Åland-Western Gulf of Finland:

2th Feb Åland area
3rd Feb Korppoo-Houtskari area ca. 1600 o'clock
4th Feb Utö area ca. 14.20 o'clock


Regards, Juha

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

edited 2145 local time