highest kill ratio (3 Viewers)

[topspeed]

That's really helpful insight thank you!

There has been a full take over of russian bots in Finland in this matter. I would be very very cautious about comments like this based on "official soviet archives".

 

[topspeed]

I might mention a few things here:

First, Soviet records were not all that accurate until the fall of the Soviet Union and sealed archives could be accessed for actual statistics.

Second, using Facebook AI is not a peer-reviewed source and *might* be a starting point for research, but shouldn't be used as a source for confirmation of fact.

I think these "facts" are based on someone in the internet claimed to be a person with access to soviets statistic during the war.

Even I got data from the "sources" while I was first time in the internet and interested of these as an army brat.

But if you take them with grain of salt...then it is ok. I was very surprised that they okayed the possible 5 kills of reserve officer Karhila....after soviet assault on Lappeenranta train hub killing hundred+ civilians.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think these "facts" are based on someone in the internet claimed to be a person with access to soviets statistic during the war.

Even I got data from the "sources" while I was first time in the internet and interested of these as an army brat.

But if you take them with grain of salt...then it is ok. I was very surprised that they okayed the possible 5 kills of reserve officer Karhila....after soviet assault on Lappeenranta train hub killing hundred+ civilians.

There were two sets of statistics held by the Soviets.
One was what Stalin wanted people to hear.
The second (and actual) set of statistics is what actually happened. It is this second set of statistics that remained sealed until the Soviet Union fell. Publications prior to 1991 use the propaganda data base, the publications after 1991 reflect the research conducted post Soviet Era figures.

A good example of how well the Soviets did against Finland (despite their propeganda), would be the extensive purges that Uncle Joe conducted amongst his commanders after the failure of his "winter war".

And the absolute irony of his purges, is that in the absence of his battle experienced commanders, the Germans nearly won in their initial assault of the Soviet Union.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

There has been a full take over of russian bots in Finland in this matter. I would be very very cautious about comments like this based on "official soviet archives".

These kinds of feelings-based claims are typical to what I call the dilettante crowd (people with only superficial knowledge and interest in a topic); the gist being that Russian records are unreliable because they're Russian. I am however yet to see a single aviation historian claim or even insinuate that internal Russian (Soviet) recordkeeping on the occurrance of losses is unreliable. We're talking of figures the Soviet military required reported in order to function, the kind which if a Soviet officer lied about would likely see him shot. For people interested in this topic it's important to be able to differentiate between Soviet propaganda meant for the public and their internal recordkeeping.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of taking Finnish kill claims at face value, or even with just a little bit of air, while still acknowledging that there was a lot of air in the kill claims of the air forces of other countries, is that it would make Finnish pilots exceptional super soldiers the like which the world hasn't seen before or since. Proponents of this line of thinking never seem to be able to explain what would explain this fantastical Finnish exceptionalism. Finnish pilots didn't possess exceptional qualities not found elsewhere nor did they receive exceptional training (contrary to what often seems to be imagined in Finland). There's even indications that the Germans were more effective fighter pilots than the Finns were: there's less air in the German Detachment Kuhlmey's kill claims over the Karelian Isthmus in the summer of 1944 than there are in Finnish equivalents over the same area in the same time frame. Whether that's because the Germans in this case were flying Fw 190s or because they had more refined tactics, I don't know. A more thorough study between Finnish and German fighter pilot effectiveness would certainly be an interesting read.

At any rate, the academic consensus is that Soviet records on the occurrance of losses are reliable. The reason for the loss can be wrong in the records, but the loss itself is recorded. Cross analysis with said records reveals that perhaps 60-70% of kill claims made by Finnish pilots in the Continuation War are nothing but air. The figure was lower in the Winter War, only 25%*. There are several reasons for this, including the FAF's kill crediting acceptance being at its strictest criteria in 1939-40, but the chief reason I believe is that in the Winter War the Finns were mostly shooting at relatively easy targets: unescorted bombers. This was also the case in the summer of 1941, where kill claims are still fairly reliable. Once the opponent becomes more challenging, i.e. mostly VVS fighters, the amount of air in the kill claims goes up massively. This is further exacerbated by combat happening over the water, no man's land or near enemy lines.

60-70% of claims being air is in line with what one would expect when comparing kill claims internationally. In fact it might be on the better end of the spectrum; I'm seeing a lot of cases from the other air fronts of WW2 where there's 80-90% air in kill claims. Realistically though the topic requires a proper study made about it.

*It rises to 47% if we include FAF bomber claims against aircraft on the ground. Sadly I don't have such FAF bomber claim figures for the Continuation War, only their air-to-air gunner claims.

 

[topspeed]

These kinds of feelings-based claims are typical to what I call the dilettante crowd (people with only superficial knowledge and interest in a topic); the gist being that Russian records are unreliable because they're Russian. I am however yet to see a single aviation historian claim or even insinuate that internal Russian (Soviet) recordkeeping on the occurrance of losses is unreliable. We're talking of figures the Soviet military required reported in order to function, the kind which if a Soviet officer lied about would likely see him shot. For people interested in this topic it's important to be able to differentiate between Soviet propaganda meant for the public and their internal recordkeeping.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of taking Finnish kill claims at face value, or even with just a little bit of air, while still acknowledging that there was a lot of air in the kill claims of the air forces of other countries, is that it would make Finnish pilots exceptional super soldiers the like which the world hasn't seen before or since. Proponents of this line of thinking never seem to be able to explain what would explain this fantastical Finnish exceptionalism. Finnish pilots didn't possess exceptional qualities not found elsewhere nor did they receive exceptional training (contrary to what often seems to be imagined in Finland). There's even indications that the Germans were more effective fighter pilots than the Finns were: there's less air in the German Detachment Kuhlmey's kill claims over the Karelian Isthmus in the summer of 1944 than there are in Finnish equivalents over the same area in the same time frame. Whether that's because the Germans in this case were flying Fw 190s or because they had more refined tactics, I don't know. A more thorough study between Finnish and German fighter pilot effectiveness would certainly be an interesting read.

At any rate, the academic consensus is that Soviet records on the occurrance of losses are reliable. The reason for the loss can be wrong in the records, but the loss itself is recorded. Cross analysis with said records reveals that perhaps 60-70% of kill claims made by Finnish pilots in the Continuation War are nothing but air. The figure was lower in the Winter War, only 25%*. There are several reasons for this, including the FAF's kill crediting acceptance being at its strictest criteria in 1939-40, but the chief reason I believe is that in the Winter War the Finns were mostly shooting at relatively easy targets: unescorted bombers. This was also the case in the summer of 1941, where kill claims are still fairly reliable. Once the opponent becomes more challenging, i.e. mostly VVS fighters, the amount of air in the kill claims goes up massively. This is further exacerbated by combat happening over the water, no man's land or near enemy lines.

60-70% of claims being air is in line with what one would expect when comparing kill claims internationally. In fact it might be on the better end of the spectrum; I'm seeing a lot of cases from the other air fronts of WW2 where there's 80-90% air in kill claims. Realistically though the topic requires a proper study made about it.

*It rises to 47% if we include FAF bomber claims against aircraft on the ground. Sadly I don't have such FAF bomber claim figures for the Continuation War, only their air-to-air gunner claims.

You forgot one variable in the Soviet equation:

If a known finnish ace shot down an enemy aircraft....politruk would never let it to be in the archives.

They were listening very carefully who was flying and where.

 

[GrauGeist]

You forgot one variable in the Soviet equation:

View attachment 896440

If a known finnish ace shot down an enemy aircraft....politruk would never let it to be in the archives.

They were listening very carefully who was flying and where.

Again:
Two different records - one for political reasons and one for statistic analysis.

It is up to you, comrade, to choose which you wish to believe.