I am reading Carl-Fredrik Geust’s “Red Stars 5”, dealing with VVS KBF in the Winter War. Due to Geust’s research, VVS KBF (which constituted only one part of the Soviet aviation which took part in the Winter War) sustained 117 aircraft losses during the Winter War, but of these, only 13 were lost in air combat (of which all but one were bombers) while 77 were lost due to various accidents (“lost in snow storm”, “lost orientation”, “landing accident”, etc), and most of the remainder were shot down by Finnish AAA.
(“Red Stars 5”, pp. 178 - 182 contains a list of each VVS KBF aircraft loss, down to damaged, 30 Nov 1939 - 13 March 1940.)
I don’t know why Juha avoids a “more in depth analyze”. The Winter War is a clear case of a war where the numerical superiority which one of the two sides held was THE factor which decided the outcome. Everyone accepts that, and as a Finn, Juha is well aware of that. So why waste words on a meaningless sentence like “Sorry, I don't have time to make a more in depth analyze”?
Finland actually was defeated twice by the Soviets - in 1940 and in 1944. Wasn’t numerical superiority THE factor which decided the outcome in 1944 as well? Does it take long studies to arrive at such an “in depth” conclusion?
BTW, read about the Swedish Air Force’s contribution to Finland’s defensive fight during the Winter War here on Håkan Gustavsson’s excellent website:
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sweden_f19.htm
A real “in depth analysis” of the air war during the Winter War - by CDR (USN Ret) Robert L. Shaw (author of "Fighter Combat"), can be found at the Fighter Tactics Academy website:
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/winter-w.htm
Enjoy!