PDA

View Full Version : Killratio from the Soviet/Finnish winterwar.



zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 01:37 PM
The finnish airforce got 96 aircrafts when the war started. During the war it grew to 287 out of which there where 160 fighters.

Finland got Fokker D XXI, CV-E, CX (biplanes) Fiat G50 Morane-Soulniet 406, Blackburn Ripon, Junker K43.
Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Bulldog, and Swedish J8 Gladiator and Hawker Hart. The Brewster didnt arrive until april 1940.

VVS used 2500 aircrafts against Finland.

Some of which was TB-3, SB-2, I-15, I-16 I-153 Lagg-1. I have seen photos of an A/C that looks like a LaGG-3.

The finnish losses where 61 a/c to technical failures, AAA, defensive bomber-fire and fighters, wws lost 500+ which of whom 200 where lost to fighters.

zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 01:37 PM
The finnish airforce got 96 aircrafts when the war started. During the war it grew to 287 out of which there where 160 fighters.

Finland got Fokker D XXI, CV-E, CX (biplanes) Fiat G50 Morane-Soulniet 406, Blackburn Ripon, Junker K43.
Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Bulldog, and Swedish J8 Gladiator and Hawker Hart. The Brewster didnt arrive until april 1940.

VVS used 2500 aircrafts against Finland.

Some of which was TB-3, SB-2, I-15, I-16 I-153 Lagg-1. I have seen photos of an A/C that looks like a LaGG-3.

The finnish losses where 61 a/c to technical failures, AAA, defensive bomber-fire and fighters, wws lost 500+ which of whom 200 where lost to fighters.

tjaika1910
02-13-2006, 01:57 PM
Dont you mix it up with the continuation war?

Anyway, excellent warfare of the finnish, espesially the infantry agianst the attacking sovjet i the winterwar.

ImpStarDuece
02-13-2006, 02:45 PM
Claims are very different from actual kills, even 'confirmed' kills. Post-war research shows that the larger the batle, the higher the overclaiming, even with gun camera footage. Most scholarly work seems to indicate that for every 3 confirmed claims, 2 targets were actually lost.

No doubt the Finnish Airforce did exceptionally well, but it remains to be seen just how high Soviet losses actually were.

500/2500 = .2 or 20%

61/287 = .213 or 21.3%

So loss RATIOS may of been similar even though the Finns shot down far more aircraft than they lost themselves.

A brief general background on the air portion of the Winter and Continuation Wars:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/fintac-5.htm

http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/russia2.htm
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/finland2.htm (http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/inland2.htm)

zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 03:02 PM
No mixup here the figures are from the winterwar and the shootdowns are from aircrafts that where found or photographed from cockpit.
The figures are from the book The Winterwar: Russia against Finland by Richard W Condon 1972 published by Aldus 1973.
I think that thoose I-16, I-153 didnt get the same flight-characteristics as thoose in the game.

puhakka-GB
02-16-2006, 11:27 AM
I haven't got figures for the Winter War only but those for the Winter and Continuation wars are as follows;
Soviet losses,
3313 in all, 1807 to Ilmavoimat, 1345 to flak the rest to other causes or destroyed on the ground.
Finnish losses,
275 lost on operations, 215 on non-operational flights and 100 in training accidents. 353 airmen were killed on operations and 86 in flying accidents.

Nubarus
02-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Zugfurher is actually comparing actual combat action to the performance of aircraft in a game, played by people who sit in a comfy chair nice and warm indoors without the feeling of actually dying when or if they get surprised or make a mistake.

Whatever happend during those dark years can never be simulated in a game.
Not to mention the skills (or the lack of it) that those who fought (and died) possesed.

And don't even try to compare yourself to one of the great aces that actually fought during those years and then reflect it back towards the FM of a game because that would make you truly a pathetic person.

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 11:46 AM
and 2,389,569 to purges. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

zugfuhrer
02-16-2006, 12:43 PM
Can you in any line find me writing that I compare myself with anything?

The fear of death was equal to all sides and cant be simulated.

But the fatique to fly without a cockpit can be simulated and many other things.

This is a game and the programmers could make the aircraft with the worst reputation, like the fairly battle, be the best fighter in this game.

But it would be better if the aircrafts that this game have would perform so that the figures from statistics from the war would be fulfilled, dont you think so?

Nubarus
02-16-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
But it would be better if the aircrafts that this game have would perform so that the figures from statistics from the war would be fulfilled, dont you think so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat statistics from the war have absolutely NOTHING to do with the plane performance in a game.
The majority of the true sim aces here have more stick time that ANY WWII fighter pilot.

Just me for example, I am 34 years old now and my first WWII sim that I played was Spitfire 40 on my Atari 800XL with a crappy data-recorder.
I was 14 at the time.

Since then I played pretty much every WWII sim ever created and I cannot even make a guess how many hours I "flew" the past 20 years but I am pretty certain it's more then any LW ace who flew from 1939 towards 1945.

Also we can learn from our mistakes and hit refly, the majority of the mostly poorly trained pilots that where shot down during the entire length of the war could not.
Then there is the element of surprise that played a huge factor during WWII air combat.

I can go on and on about this but I simply don't want to waste any more time on this subject already.

Bottom line is, test trail statistics should play the major factor in the development of a fighter sim, combat statistics do not since the element of surpise, training, pilot judgement, pilot experience and just plain good old luck play the major factor, not the performance of the ride.

msalama
02-16-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it would be better if the aircrafts that this game have would perform so that the figures from statistics from the war would be fulfilled, dont you think so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Aircraft" my hind end. You can't place the blame solely on the planes, when we the virtual pilots DO NOT - and cannot - perform / behave as our RL counterparts did back then. The real world you're talking about just DOES NOT exist inside our computers!

And "statistics" my foot. If you want this game to be statistically correct to a tee, then what you'll end up with is replaying history. Which of course means that you Blues can just bite the dust right away because you'll lose in the end anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Honestly, this opinion of yours is a cretinous one. Be sure.

harryklein66
02-16-2006, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
But it would be better if the aircrafts that this game have would perform so that the figures from statistics from the war would be fulfilled, dont you think so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it be better to have I 16 type 18 and 24 that perform like type 5, 6 and 10 ?

by the way the great majority of Finnish victory were DB-3 and SB bombers, so what the point with the I 16 performances ?

As for the LaGG-1(I-301), it make his first flight the 30 March 1940...the Winter War ended the 13 March 1940.

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjaika1910:
Dont you mix it up with the continuation war?

Anyway, excellent warfare of the finnish, espesially the infantry agianst the attacking sovjet i the winterwar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I as Finnish, call it more as an lousy warfare from russians in terms of tactics used and "laws" used. Of course, i am not saying that the work which Russian and Finnish vets did there back then,wasnt any ´brave´, all of them had their life in the cup of bets. Both for their counries, both side soldiers were crying during that time, as were civilians as they got "packets" From the front.

Finland was mostly saved because of those reasons, as well damn cold and snow rich winter, as well not so thick road net and lots of forests.

zugfuhrer
02-16-2006, 03:50 PM
For more information about the winter war look at
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/finland.htm

Whats the problem with statistics we dont have much else for guideline If we want to make a combat-sim depicting WW2. If we dont get proper computing models in the game we could name the aircrafts Redfighter1, Redfighter2.... Redbomber1, Redbomber2, ......
And if we will make a historical correct server, we must limit the numbers of aircraft available to the correct figures. Like in Normandy 4 FW was found in the airspace above Normandy of the 6:th of June, dont remember the source of it.
Where did the figures of bomber/fighter-kills come from?
Please give me the source I am most interested.
Am I blaming anything or anybody?
And why are u assuming that I am blue? I fly 50-50 red and blue. How do you divide your time on the servers?
Msalama I am fashinated of your way of putting argument. It is so fine tuned, what country do you come from?

The problems with statistics you must adress to Msalama.

Nubarus
02-16-2006, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Whats the problem with statistics we dont have much else to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's all we need to use, so I don't see a problem.

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2006, 04:57 PM
ZuGG is on to something here, but he/she does not know what to ask for. So, we can ask for ZuGG.

Combat flight sims need much greater AI programming to simulate Hristo-ical differences in pilot training, experience, tactical leadership, radio use, etc... For now, the AI skill settings can help obtain basic Hristoical combat results, but more needs to be done. For Online play, some method must be programmed that can Enforce "rookie" and "poor tactical leadership" qualities on some players -- force them even on the most bitter, depressed, most experienced Old Timer online flight simmers. Maybe the server can Pork the player's joystick settings to simulate "rookie" flying skills, or limit field of view to simulate "rookie" situational awareness.

"Luftwaffe pilots (in 1941) 10 times better" ~Oleg Maddox

Beyond the basic AI skill level settings in Offline play, there's no way of getting what ZuGG is really asking for until more advanced AI programming is done in the future and new ideas of how servers can Pork players' game settings to simulate lowering their skill levels.

zugfuhrer
02-17-2006, 01:22 PM
About the game;
This is for online gaming, offline is so predicatable.

I wouldnt say that is as complicated as Lexx writes, if you give a programmed object like the I-153 characterstics that was somewhat simimilar to what the real I-153 got, you will get somewhat similar outcome. Many things are impossible to simulate, but the most important characteristics are.

About general things;
I dont understand why people on this forum get so upset if someone like me, writes some facts from periods that can be a part of this game.

The start of this thread was intended to give those who dont knew so much about the forgotten battle, the winterwar, some knowledge about one of the most astonishing airvictories in the history of air-warfare, and perhaps stimulate a server to create a scenario with this historical background.

Churchills words "never has so many ...."
is most suitable for this air-warfare too.

BTW, the photo I saw can showing a Lagg-3 can be one from the continuing war, placed at the wrong place.

Nubarus
02-17-2006, 01:33 PM
It's pretty clear what you want Zugfuhrer.

You want the Red planes to be nerfed down because in your opinion they are overmodelled since your online experience is not the same as it was during the real thing.

So my point of view stay's the same really.

And I am not upset at all, it's all in your mind.

So basicly, bring the performance data and mail it to pf@1c.ru and try and convince the programmers that their FM is bogus because you are getting shot down by inferiour planes and that it does not reflect the actual combat experience like how it was during WWII.

I would love to see the response you get btw, but I am pretty sure you are not going to share that with the rest of us.

Heck, I am pretty sure you are not even going to send that mail in the first place since you have no real performance data to compare it with anyway.

Dash_8
02-17-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
But it would be better if the aircrafts that this game have would perform so that the figures from statistics from the war would be fulfilled, dont you think so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I don't think so. I would like all aircraft in the sim to match the specifications of their flight test data and have the feel of a real aircraft through our computer flight sticks. I choose to use new aircraft test data so that all aircraft are on an equal playing field. You can't have data on a factory fresh, brand new plane controlling one flight model while your enemy is dealing with an airplane that has been 'in the field' for a year. I know this happened during the war (a new airplane confronting a worn out airplane), but for simulation purposes, the planes have to have the same starting point. My intrest in this sim is trying different aircraft againt each other to see how they would have fought if they met in battle. I know pilot skill has A LOT to do with actual battle results but the FMs and physics of flight have to be correct first before pilot exprerience factors into the sim.

Just because history says a Hellcat had a 19 to 1 kill ratio doesn't mean we need to change the FM of the Hellcat and the Zero so that ratio is achieved in this sim. I would much rather have correct flight models and have to use real world tactics to achieve that kill ratio.

Grendel-B
02-17-2006, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
The finnish losses where 61 a/c to technical failures, AAA, defensive bomber-fire and fighters, wws lost 500+ which of whom 200 where lost to fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The currently accepted figures for the Winter War are roughly like the following:

Finnish aircraft lossed during Winter War was 61 planes, 34 of those in aerial combat, four shot down by AA. 54 pilots were killed.

Soviet losses were about a thousand planes, about half shot down by Finnish fighters or AA.

Of those, Finnish fighters shot down 203 Soviet planes.

LLv24's piece of that was 30.11.1939-13.03.1940 122 aerial victories, on 2388 sorties, against 12 lost planes, 9 in aerial combat, 1 destroyed on ground, 1 by own AA and 1 in accident. Seven pilots were killed.

You should notice that the only modern plane of FiAF at the start of Winter War was the Bristol Blenheim bomber. Fokker D.XXI fighter was the newest fighter, and the only type that could somehow fight against Russian fighters.

Also it should be taken into consideration that the claims of FiAF in Winter War have been checked afterwards, and the actual nubmer of Russian losses highly exceed the claims. A lot of the destroyed planes could not be claimed, since they were not witnessed or the Russian planes escaped outside Finland, where their destruction could not be confirmed. During the Finnish offensive of 1941 several dozens of destroyed Russian plane wrecks were be found, and attributed to the Winter War aerial combats.

Waldo.Pepper
02-17-2006, 02:23 PM
Dear zugfuhrer

Your initial post assumed that the historical kill loss ratio rests solely on the perfomance of the plane, rather than the pilot. When in fact it is almost completely the opposite that is true.

Grendel-B
02-17-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

I wouldnt say that is as complicated as Lexx writes, if you give a programmed object like the I-153 characterstics that was somewhat simimilar to what the real I-153 got, you will get somewhat similar outcome. Many things are impossible to simulate, but the most important characteristics are.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not possible to simulate the human. The pilots. Their training. Their capability. The actual historical setting, detailed to the smallest level, to give a simulated scenario the same accurary.

A flight simulator is a game and might be a good simulation of flying experience, but we cannot really expect to duplicate historical settings to the finest details.

Many people wouldn't fly a three hour mission with 20 other humans, with SB-2 bombers, to bomb Tampere, with the only action during the flight coming from navigational problems and two Fokker D.XXIs intercepting your unit over the target.

We can duplicate the flight models, but we cannot really expect the flight models alone bring a historical end result. We, the virtual pilots, are gamers, not pilots. We lack their training - or lack of the trainign -, the skills of flying a plane, the system that the original pilots were taught with, the tactics they were taught to follow...

We can simulate history, but we can't duplicate it.

zugfuhrer
02-17-2006, 05:03 PM
First I dont think that the VVS was incompetent, I think that they could plan and execute a bombermission and coordinate it with fighterprotection.

Second Thanks for the detailed figures, where do you get them from?

Third When a poster writes insults he must be upset.

Fourth Some conclusions some of you draw goes too far. I dont want to nerf anything down.

I am not comparing to my experience from online gaming, there are very few aircraft from the finnish airforce flyable, only the I-153, I-16 and Fiat G50 I think.

Further I have posted questions to fb@1c.ru about a test I did some years ago, but didnt get any answer.

I am collecting some test-results from this newest patch and I will send it to them, and publish it on this forum.

Finally I keep the priviledge to construct the question to pf@1c.ru my way.

Addendum, It wold be intersting to host a server and put 5 Fiat G50 with the best pilots from the Spitsvs109 server, against 20 I-153-pilots randomly selected, on an protect 5 SB-bombers mission.

Treetop64
02-17-2006, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjaika1910:
Dont you mix it up with the continuation war?

Anyway, excellent warfare of the finnish, espesially the infantry agianst the attacking sovjet i the winterwar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I as Finnish, call it more as an lousy warfare from russians in terms of tactics used and "laws" used. Of course, i am not saying that the work which Russian and Finnish vets did there back then,wasnt any ´brave´, all of them had their life in the cup of bets. Both for their counries, both side soldiers were crying during that time, as were civilians as they got "packets" From the front.

Finland was mostly saved because of those reasons, as well damn cold and snow rich winter, as well not so thick road net and lots of forests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin, with his infinite military genius, simply sent all those poor guys to Finland to freeze to death, simply to throw the Germans off, since Stalin knew they would be watching.

...yeah, that's it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-17-2006, 05:15 PM
Zugg, you may wish to look up Finnish scores using captured VVS fighters. They used some in combat I believe. How well I don't know, but I am "guessing" they may have used VVS fighters better than VVS pilots used them. See what you come up with.

Also the Finns faced the same situation faced by the Flying Tigers in 1942 and North Vietnamese in 1960s ... a target rich environment. Even the Japanese could not provide competent escort for bombers against properly used fighter interception. Neither could the US Air Force in Korea protect B-29s even with F-86s, and the -29s had to start bombing at night -- escorting tactical fighter bombers was a different story.

zugfuhrer
02-17-2006, 05:20 PM
The fastest source for this is Google
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/polikarpov_finland.htm
It will take a lot of time to check the sources from the military historical sources.

LEXX_Luthor
02-17-2006, 05:22 PM
Great! Now get on it. Aussom!

Nubarus
02-17-2006, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Third When a poster writes insults he must be upset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insults?

Please quote my so called insults because I can't find any.

Or are you really that sensitive? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I truly feel that my conclusion is right on the money looking at your last post zugfuhrer.

Anyway,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
I think that thoose I-16, I-153 didnt get the same flight-characteristics as thoose in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious what you imply here zugfuhrer.

And BTW, good luck finding that test M8. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HotelBushranger
02-18-2006, 02:52 AM
"During the two wars Finnish flying units officially accounted for 1807 aircraft destroyed out of a total of 3313. Flack accounted for 1345, whilst the rest comprised aircraft downed by naval units, those destroyed on the ground (not those destroyed in Finnish bomber raids) or aircraft seen to crash whilst attempting to avoid Finnish fighters or flak. Fighters were also responsible for downing 28 observation balloons and fire-control balloons. In turn, the Finnish Air Force lost 257 aircraft on operations, 215 non-operationally and 100 in training accidents. Personnel losses amounted to 353 airmen killed or missing in action and 86 in flying accidents. In respect to the accuracy of the pilots' claims, recent research in Russian files has revealed that 1855 aircraft were downed by Finnish fighters, with the aces themselves accounting for 77 percent of this figure."

Stenman, K & Keskinen, K (1998), Finnish Aces of World War 2, Osprey, London

Grendel-B
02-18-2006, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Zugg, you may wish to look up Finnish scores using captured VVS fighters. They used some in combat I believe. How well I don't know, but I am "guessing" they may have used VVS fighters better than VVS pilots used them. See what you come up with.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The capture Russian fighters were not used in Finnish fighter squadrons, though. Those were sent to training units or recon squadrons. To places where opposition was less - and less FInnish fighter squadrons operating to avoid mistaken identifications.

One good url was given by Zugfuhrer I see, that is a good and accurage article.

But shortly said,

Finns had two LaGG-3s. 45 combat sorties, one victory, one less to technical fault.

Finnish I-16s flew mostly in training missions and sea recon. Nothing remarkable happened.

Finnish I-153 operated under LLv6 25.6.1941-16.11.1942. They made 5 victories, destroyed 4 light ships and lost 4 I-153s, two in aerial combat. LLv30 used I-153s 16.11.1942-20.3.1944. No victories, 7 I-153 lost, one in aerial combat.

I-15bis fighters served in training squadrons.

So not much to tell, from "heroic" perspective here. I'm sure the pilots themselves would have a lot to tell about those flights, though.

zugfuhrer
02-18-2006, 04:00 AM
I dont want to throw pies on anyone parikular but if someone feels that he has wrote some for a gentleman unsuitable words, perhaps he maybe will think it over.

Arnt words like, cr***tin, behind my ****, and other invectives gives me a feeling that the writer use overstatements noot suiteble for a gentlemans language.

I am only trying to keep this forum clean from this.

I am not so good at english so Nubarus pleas explain what you mean with the sentence "right on the money"
and
"it is quite obvious what you imply"

Thank you Grendel and Bushranger for the links and the stats.

I have flown on hyperlobby at the server where the scenarious are taken from the continuing war in carelian isthmus, a campaign like VEF would be fun to take part in, with coop-missions from the winterwar.

Nubarus
02-18-2006, 10:54 AM
What?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about zug.
None of the words I used where blocked out by the forum filter and I can't see any obnoxious word in my posts.

As for your 2 questions regarding my statements I suggest you simply Google for it, that way you can beef up your own English a bit for future discussions you might have.

triggerhappyfin
02-18-2006, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Dear zugfuhrer

Your initial post assumed that the historical kill loss ratio rests solely on the perfomance of the plane, rather than the pilot. When in fact it is almost completely the opposite that is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even this is true, I´m afraid.
The Finnish pilots were very well trained and early with implementation of the most modern tactics. The FAF studied tactics used by Luftwaffe, who had developed their finger four tactis and rotte organisation of battle groups during the Spain campaign, FAF had close bonds to Luftwaffe prior to outbreak of the second worldwar. LeLv 24´s CO Capt G Magnusson were in German to study tactics(prior to his appointment as CO in -38) and learned from German pilots the best ways of dealing with the Ratas and Chaikas, German pilots had met in Spain.
Magnusson took his findings back to Finland and First implemented the new tactics to LeLv 24.

When The hostilities began in 1 of september 1939. FAF had some 114 serviceable aircrafts at the outbreak of hostilities. To meet VVS amount of 3253 aircraft with. The Russians flew some 1000 sorties a day in the beginning of the war!

The LeLv 24 witch was the FAF entire frontline fighter unit(1/9 1939) consisted of 35 Fokker DXXI's!

The remarkable fact is when one studies the annals of FAF during the whole war, they always was outnumbered in similar manner! Yet the FAF managed to slaughter Russian pilots in hundreds and thousends with only minor losses in pilots and planes!

What was the main factors to this remarcable achievement?

It was the fact of training of Finnish pilots!

It was the implementation of the "fighting pair" the rotte, that easily was increased to finger four formations.

It was the Finnish tactic of pendulum fighting, the zoom and boom tactics, that only Germans beside the Finnish pilots had adopted. By this tactics the FAF pilots always kept the advantage in the fight.
It wasnt before second half of -43 the Russians began with such tactics!

The FAF onslaught of the VVS had such impact on the numerical superior VVS that they often hesitated to leave areas that Russian AAA could control for long periods of time!

zugfuhrer
02-18-2006, 02:50 PM
Nub there are others than you on this thread, be sure.
Trigger that was very interesting I have never heard about this close cooperation, thx.

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjaika1910:
Dont you mix it up with the continuation war?

Anyway, excellent warfare of the finnish, espesially the infantry agianst the attacking sovjet i the winterwar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I as Finnish, call it more as an lousy warfare from russians in terms of tactics used and "laws" used. Of course, i am not saying that the work which Russian and Finnish vets did there back then,wasnt any ´brave´, all of them had their life in the cup of bets. Both for their counries, both side soldiers were crying during that time, as were civilians as they got "packets" From the front.

Finland was mostly saved because of those reasons, as well damn cold and snow rich winter, as well not so thick road net and lots of forests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin, with his infinite military genius, simply sent all those poor guys to Finland to freeze to death, simply to throw the Germans off, since Stalin knew they would be watching.

...yeah, that's it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you know it better.

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:58 AM
wasnt there Magnusson in France too? remember something about that? cannot be sure.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Slickun
02-19-2006, 10:24 AM
"Right on the Money" means very accurate.

"It is quite obvious that you imply" means that someone thinks you are actually saying something, without actually saying it, and not being very sneaky about it.

For example, you say "hey, I see you bought some new pants" to your wife. She thinks you are "implying" that she is so fat she needs new pants.

Your English is a lot better than my Spanish, I guarantee that.

horseback
02-19-2006, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was the Finnish tactic of pendulum fighting, the zoom and boom tactics, that only Germans beside the Finnish pilots had adopted. By this tactics the FAF pilots always kept the advantage in the fight.
It wasnt before second half of -43 the Russians began with such tactics! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not just the Germans and the Finns...the US Navy's aviators were developing similar tactics half a world away, originally using Grumman F2F/3F biplanes. These three air forces may have been the only ones in the world to include deflection shooting as part of their training syllabus before 1939.

What you describe is almost identical to the "high side pass" developed by LCDR John Thach and worked to perfection by Butch O'Hare, Joe Foss, and others. It placed a premium on deflection (or 'angle off') shooting, airmanship and all around marksmanship.

My examination of pilot memoirs (from all sides that I can get; unfortunately, there are not a lot of English translations from the Finnish Air Force) seems to indicate that the RAF was badly remiss in aerial marksmanship training (to the point that there was almost none prewar-might have been seen as 'provocative'), the French and Polish AFs were near as bad, and the USAAF--prewar, there appears to have been little or no training for air-to-air.

Fortunately for America, we were a mainly rural population that regularly supplemented our diets with game. The average American farmboy was much more familiar with the need to 'lead' a flying target than his Allied counterparts.

But back on point: The Finns' advantage over the Soviets in the air was absolutely the men and their training, not their aircraft.

cheers

horseback

zugfuhrer
02-19-2006, 10:48 AM
Very interesting.

So "its quit obvious that ...." is some sort of translation from what I say to what the receiver thinks that I am saying.
Perhaps this translation tells more about the receiver.
The way USN built a/c seems to confirm that they used the b&z.
It seems a little odd to b&z with bi-planes.
By the way I have read that during the continuing war, the Airdefence above Helsinkki was very good. Only a few bombs hit the targets.
Any info about it?

Thank you for keeping this thread without insults and bad language.

LStarosta
02-19-2006, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
[QUOTE]
My examination of pilot memoirs (from all sides that I can get; unfortunately, there are not a lot of English translations from the Finnish Air Force) seems to indicate that the RAF was badly remiss in aerial marksmanship training (to the point that there was almost none prewar-might have been seen as 'provocative'), the French and Polish AFs were near as bad, and the USAAF--prewar, there appears to have been little or no training for air-to-air.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see your sources about the PAF. Near as bad as the RAF? I suggest you re-examine your sources, especially first hand accounts from Poles on the juvenile, outdated, ineffective and sometimes suicidal dogma of the RAF going into the Battle of Britain and what these Poles thought of it and did about it.