Catch22
Major
Finland. No bones about it.
What minor nation did the best job of putting together and deploying an air force?
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical. Still for instance the Dutch (which I know best) managed to shoot down about 400 of the 929 German planes deployed against them. That's about 40% in 5 days, not bad eh. Don't know the exact numbers of the other 2 countries, though.
Germany 2000 aircrafts - 230 shot down
Russia 3200 aircrafts - 20 shot down (when Russians attacked Polish Air Force was already destroyed by Germans)
Poland 388 aircrafts in first line (142 fighters) - don't have exact number of lost planes but I think you can imagine...
I'm not sure if this numbers are correct but they show the scale.
If you can read Dutch, you can get quite some info about this. I think most of these were AA victims. The rest was mostly shot down by D.XXI's, G.I's and T.V's. The majority of the lost planes were Ju52's who got a real beating. Fact is, the Germans decided to do an airborn attack, which proved to be very costly.
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
I have to go with my country on this one, although I must pay my respects for the Finnish Air Force. My country fought the Hungarians, Russians, Americans, British and finally the Germans.
"When Romania, allied with Germany, went to war against USSR, on 22nd June 1941, the Romanian Military Aviation had 621 airplanes; on the Eastern front Combat Air Group operated with 253 fighter, reconnaissance and bombing airplanes."
"Between 1941-1944, Romanian airplanes won 2000 air victories."
"From 23rd August 1944 to 12th May 1945, Romanian Air Corps accomplished 4200 missions, delivering 8300 sorties and flying 11000 hours. During those missions, crews launched 1360 t bombs shooting down 126 German and Hungarian airplanes. Other 228 airplanes were captured by Romanian airmen."
More info at History - Romanian Air Force
"When Romania, allied with Germany, went to war against USSR, on 22nd June 1941, the Romanian Military Aviation had 621 airplanes; on the Eastern front Combat Air Group operated with 253 fighter, reconnaissance and bombing airplanes."
"Between 1941-1944, Romanian airplanes won 2000 air victories."
"From 23rd August 1944 to 12th May 1945, Romanian Air Corps accomplished 4200 missions, delivering 8300 sorties and flying 11000 hours. During those missions, crews launched 1360 t bombs shooting down 126 German and Hungarian airplanes. Other 228 airplanes were captured by Romanian airmen."
More info at History - Romanian Air Force
Marcel
Quote: " Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical."
Now when the Winter War began in 30 Nov 39, there were 119 Finnish combat planes against 2318 Soviet combat planes and when it ended 13 March 40 force correlation was 166 vs 3818.
And during summer 41, when the Continuation War began 25 Jun when Soviet AF tried to destroy FAF a/c on their a/fs Soviet lost in a week some 50 planes, Finnish combat losses were only a few damaged. Also FAF fighters could give excellent air cover for Finnish ground troops for ex during river crossings.
And during the summer 44 when escorted by FAF Bf 109Gs over Karelian Isthmus FAF suffered no total bomber losses to Soviet fighters during Finnish bomber missions even if Soviet Union had concentrated over 1500 a/c against Finland. North of Lake Lagoda Finns lost few bombers to Soviet fighters because distances were too long for Bf 109s and Finns had to rely on Hawk 75As as escorts, Hawks were slower than the bombers (Blenheims and Ju 88s) they escorted and badly outclassed by La-5s and P-39Ns/Qs. Even if well flown Hawk 75A could survive and sometimes even achieve air victories relying its very good horizontal manoeuvrability it could not protect bombers adequately.
And while the Soviet Airforces were not LW, VVS had in Aug 39 wrestled air superiority from JAAF over Khalkin-Gol and a/c losses in that struggle had been rather similar on both sides. Also even if I-16s and I-153s were not Bf 109Es they were faster, climbed better and were more manoeuvrable than the Finnish AF main fighter during the Winter War, Fokker XXI. Fokker's only trump card was higher V(max) and robust construction. I-153 and I-16 also had back armour for pilot already in 1939.
Juha
Quote: " Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical."
Now when the Winter War began in 30 Nov 39, there were 119 Finnish combat planes against 2318 Soviet combat planes and when it ended 13 March 40 force correlation was 166 vs 3818.
And during summer 41, when the Continuation War began 25 Jun when Soviet AF tried to destroy FAF a/c on their a/fs Soviet lost in a week some 50 planes, Finnish combat losses were only a few damaged. Also FAF fighters could give excellent air cover for Finnish ground troops for ex during river crossings.
And during the summer 44 when escorted by FAF Bf 109Gs over Karelian Isthmus FAF suffered no total bomber losses to Soviet fighters during Finnish bomber missions even if Soviet Union had concentrated over 1500 a/c against Finland. North of Lake Lagoda Finns lost few bombers to Soviet fighters because distances were too long for Bf 109s and Finns had to rely on Hawk 75As as escorts, Hawks were slower than the bombers (Blenheims and Ju 88s) they escorted and badly outclassed by La-5s and P-39Ns/Qs. Even if well flown Hawk 75A could survive and sometimes even achieve air victories relying its very good horizontal manoeuvrability it could not protect bombers adequately.
And while the Soviet Airforces were not LW, VVS had in Aug 39 wrestled air superiority from JAAF over Khalkin-Gol and a/c losses in that struggle had been rather similar on both sides. Also even if I-16s and I-153s were not Bf 109Es they were faster, climbed better and were more manoeuvrable than the Finnish AF main fighter during the Winter War, Fokker XXI. Fokker's only trump card was higher V(max) and robust construction. I-153 and I-16 also had back armour for pilot already in 1939.
Juha
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Why didn't the FAF use B-239's for longer range escort? (though I guess the performance was about the same as the Hawk 75A-3/6 it was better than the A-1/2, had a better armament, and was more maneuverable still)
Hello Kool Kitty
I don't know but my guess is that because of area between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega was the operational area of the LeR1 whose fighter sqn was HLeLv 32 (the Hawk 75A sqn) they used HLeLv 32 as escorting unit there. B-239s were in that time in HLeLv 26, which had just got them from HLeLv 24 after 26's Fiat G.50s were given to a training sqn. HLeLv 26 operated over NE Karelian Isthmus behind frontline at that time and Finns probably thought that it wasn't worth of switching the units. Well worn B-239s were not so much faster than Hawk 75As. FAF Hawks 75As were in essence like A-1s or A-2s, 4-gun or 6-gun a/c with 1065 hp P&W. Those Hawks with Cyclones had their engines changed to P&Ws by Nov 41 and because of Finns didn't have 100 octane fuel but a very limited amount they got out even from R-1830-S1C3-Gs only appr. 1065 hp.
One clarification, Blenheim was faster than FAF's Hawks over 4000 m, at lower lever Hawk was faster.
Juha
I don't know but my guess is that because of area between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega was the operational area of the LeR1 whose fighter sqn was HLeLv 32 (the Hawk 75A sqn) they used HLeLv 32 as escorting unit there. B-239s were in that time in HLeLv 26, which had just got them from HLeLv 24 after 26's Fiat G.50s were given to a training sqn. HLeLv 26 operated over NE Karelian Isthmus behind frontline at that time and Finns probably thought that it wasn't worth of switching the units. Well worn B-239s were not so much faster than Hawk 75As. FAF Hawks 75As were in essence like A-1s or A-2s, 4-gun or 6-gun a/c with 1065 hp P&W. Those Hawks with Cyclones had their engines changed to P&Ws by Nov 41 and because of Finns didn't have 100 octane fuel but a very limited amount they got out even from R-1830-S1C3-Gs only appr. 1065 hp.
One clarification, Blenheim was faster than FAF's Hawks over 4000 m, at lower lever Hawk was faster.
Juha
- Thread starter
- #29
Oreo
Senior Airman
yes, I was going to say, I don't think there was ever a Blenheim in production whose max speed was faster than the max speed of any retracto-gear Hawk 75 (usually in the 300-312 range). Most of the Ju 88 bombers were slower than 300 mph, also, except for S series, which I doubt Finland ever had.
The H 75 really was a useful little plane, I believe at least one P-36 shot down a JN a/c over Pearl Harbor, could be wrong about that.
hunter0f2
Airman
Switzerland!!!--- Had to keep the Luftwaffe, USAAF, RAF out of their Airspace during WW2!!
Hello Oreo
Now Finns thought that Curtiss clearly overstated their figures in case of Hawk 75A. As Bell did with P-39. On the other hand Brewster's figures on B-229 were very exact.
In the tests Finns found out that fully equipped Hawk 75A with 1065 hp R-1830-SC3-G had max speed of appr. 440 km/h TAS at 3000m and with 1200 hp R-1820 Cyclone appr. 480 km/h TAS at 3300 m. So FAF Blenheims were faster than FAF Hawks over 4000m altitude and Ju 88A-4/Rs were a bit faster.
And yes, Hawk 75A was an useful plane, it was the most successful fighter of French AF during 39-40 period and still in 44 FAF Hawks had positive exchange rate (19 victories to 6 air combat losses, victories are not claims but true Soviet losses) but pilots acknowledged that La-5s and P-39s were clearly better planes than their mounts. Of the victories 4 were over LaGG-3s, 6 over La-5s and one over P-39, one over Pe-2, one over Boston and one over U-2 bi-plane. Rest were Il-2s.
Juha
Now Finns thought that Curtiss clearly overstated their figures in case of Hawk 75A. As Bell did with P-39. On the other hand Brewster's figures on B-229 were very exact.
In the tests Finns found out that fully equipped Hawk 75A with 1065 hp R-1830-SC3-G had max speed of appr. 440 km/h TAS at 3000m and with 1200 hp R-1820 Cyclone appr. 480 km/h TAS at 3300 m. So FAF Blenheims were faster than FAF Hawks over 4000m altitude and Ju 88A-4/Rs were a bit faster.
And yes, Hawk 75A was an useful plane, it was the most successful fighter of French AF during 39-40 period and still in 44 FAF Hawks had positive exchange rate (19 victories to 6 air combat losses, victories are not claims but true Soviet losses) but pilots acknowledged that La-5s and P-39s were clearly better planes than their mounts. Of the victories 4 were over LaGG-3s, 6 over La-5s and one over P-39, one over Pe-2, one over Boston and one over U-2 bi-plane. Rest were Il-2s.
Juha
A bit more info
Of the 6 Hawk 75As lost in air combat in 1944 3 were shot down by P-39s, 2 by LaGG-3s and one by Il-2. La-5s shot down at least one Hawk 75A but it was repaired, so not a total loss but still a legitime kill to La-5s. 2 La-5s surprised one Hawk which was just landing and hit it badly but the pilot made successful (wheels-up?) landing on Nurmoila a/f. In Hawk 75A one must switch off the radio before landing because otherwise selecting gear down would have blown the main fuse. Men in the control tower saw the La-5s diving towards the Hawk but of course the Finnish pilot could not hear their warnings.
Juha
Of the 6 Hawk 75As lost in air combat in 1944 3 were shot down by P-39s, 2 by LaGG-3s and one by Il-2. La-5s shot down at least one Hawk 75A but it was repaired, so not a total loss but still a legitime kill to La-5s. 2 La-5s surprised one Hawk which was just landing and hit it badly but the pilot made successful (wheels-up?) landing on Nurmoila a/f. In Hawk 75A one must switch off the radio before landing because otherwise selecting gear down would have blown the main fuse. Men in the control tower saw the La-5s diving towards the Hawk but of course the Finnish pilot could not hear their warnings.
Juha
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe the Finns had mostly A-1 and A-2 Hawks (with some A-3's and a mix od a few others) which had somewhat less powerful engines, plus they didn't have 100 octane fuel. So most would probably have been no faster than 300 mph. (closer to 290 mph by Finnish figures I think, though the A-3's may have made it a bit over 300 mph)
- Thread starter
- #34
Oreo
Senior Airman
Ah, true, the old octane problem. It always makes me wonder what some of the world's a/c could have done with 100 octane or better fuel-- I believe the Japanese, and most of the eastern front nations used 87 octane or similar-- in fact, which nations other than US did have access to 100 or more octane fuel?
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The German C-3 (synthetic) and C-2 (natural, but lest often used iirc) were roughly equivelent to the US 100/130 octane fuel.
And I believe the Russians used 100 octane. (at least they sometimes had it available, but I'm not sure if it was imported or not)
And I believe the Russians used 100 octane. (at least they sometimes had it available, but I'm not sure if it was imported or not)
- Thread starter
- #36
Oreo
Senior Airman
I suppose the British had it, too. What about Italians, French, etc?
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the Bristish got most (if not all) of theirs from the US.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
X
Wrong thread...
Wrong thread...
- Thread starter
- #39
Oreo
Senior Airman
I don't think it saw combat-- then I guess the D.510 didn't either, that I'm aware of. I put the D 510 in just to round out the numbers-- it did at least see squadron service, whereas I don't believe the M.20 did. I think the D 510 was a good contemporary for the P-26. I would like to see a good comparative analysis of those two-- would have been neat if they had seen combat against each other in some backwater.
B-17engineer
Colonel
Finland for me. Taking the F2A Buffalo and using to an advantage.
