Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?

[Andrey Dikov]

Terve, Kari!

>We are not talking about Wind's claims. You did read what Väinö Pokela told in the intro? "... Someone suggested that one of the
squadron pilots go to Kauhava to lecture on tactics". The lecture was AFAIK collected wisdom, not only Wind's personal experience. It is
a good description of tactics seen from FinnAF Brewster pilot's percpective.

OK, but...


>I tend to think similarly about many of Wind's claims as you seem to do. But the fact that the three Hurricane claims by Wind do not
correspond to losses doesn't change not one thing in Hurricane's power (speed)/altitude curve, does it?

Hmm, honestly I always say that I'm not a 'technical' expert, i.e. I'm not much interested and have not enough exact knowledge about
aviation hardware. Contrary I'm more oriented on real history of combats and tend to look at aircraft performance from this point of
view - real results, pilots and tactics, not from curves etc.

It is banal, but I do think that aircraft performance is complex of different characteristics and features, so no speed curves or
anything similar are enough to make a conclusion about particular model.

Now we just can't estimate for certain the real effect of good
radio, comfortability, technical maintenance and all such small and numerous details. So I think the way to make a conclusion basing on
real combat results and real combats is more accurate.

Back to 3 giap experience - this experience was good. Despite losses and own claims, which can't be confirmed for example by Finnish
losses as well.

Of course curves were not excellent, the main things why they liked Hurry - TR-9D RT and ShVAK cannons.

>Tshukovski's (spelling) book "Baltic Sky" seems to confirm the habit of Hurricane

Chukovskiy was a wartime correspondent, he wrote his nice novel about Leningrad siege and Leningrad pilots, but that's just a novel,
'literature kunststu:ck'.

> (quoting Wind): "It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."
...but Hurries didn't "burst into flames immediately" in real.

Neither Soviet pilots (nor me) thoughе that Hurricane was any kind of superb or extremely good or just good, but it wasn't ugly. It was
more or less 'normal'.

>I am eagerly looking forward to be able to read your text about 3 GIAP Hurricane experiences.

I can send it to you in Russian.

To Mirek:

>To much time I have read many ungly claimes of Soviet pilots for terrible Allied Hurricane and much worse British and American weapons
but very seldom, particular before 1990

How about Airacobra, which was praised regularly? I think in 70-80s average American aviation enthusiast knew much less about
Cobra than average Soviet (and Polish) enthusiast. Or at least he knew much less good things about Airacobra.

The main reason why Hurricanes and Tomahawks were criticised hard (and exagerratedly) was the fact that they weren't brilliant really. And that Allies supplied VVS by second-rate planes in period when VVS eagerly needed good ones.

By the way, Mirek, you have ignored my question about archive sources you used for your article about 3 giap Hurries. Could you answer,
please?