Italian aircraft and their top aces

[PMoz99]

Thanks for the explanation Juha!

[knusel]

Hello Juha,

yes, thanks for the explanation.

I think, Tuominen's top position among the Fiat G.50 aces is quite secure:

1. Oiva Tuominen 16 [15+2] + 1 balloon + 7 probables in the Fiat G.50
2. Olli Puhakka 13 in the Fiat G.50
3. Nils Trontti 6 in the Fiat G.50
4. Onni Paronen 5,5 in the Fiat G.50

Are there any probables among the G.50 kills of Puhakka, Trontti and Paronen ?

Cheers,

Michael

[PMoz99]

Hello Micheal.
I have the Osprey version of the book by Keskinen and Stenman, but it only gives overall total kill figures without specifying probables.
It seems the Biplane Aces site has taken figures from a different version of the book - perhaps the one referred to by Juha. Unfortunately, the only other high scoring biplane ace was Puro, so other than for him there are few or no probables figures.
If someone can provide the probables for each pilot, that would be great!
I personally am interested in -
Juutilainen, Wind, Luukkanen, Lehtovaara, Tuominen (we have), Puhakka, Puro (we have), Katajainen, Nissinen, Karhila and Karhunen.
Please note there are other discrepancies too - for example, Ciel de Gloire lists Puro's second kill as a Pe-2 on 12/11/42, but Biplane Aces lists the same as damaged.
Cheers
Peter

[knusel]

Good morning Juha & Peter,

I would be interested in such a breakdown, too.

Michael

[Juha]

Hello
Håkan has used the newer Keskinen & Stenman books, incl Ilmavoitot/Aerial Victories 1 & 2, they are mentioned in the source list e.g. of the Tuominen article. They have Finnish/English texts and captions. The victory listing methods of the FiAF and the method used in the Ilmavoitot books are explained in the fist six pages of the osa/vol 1.
And
Juutilainen 94 and 10 dam. 76+18+10
Wind 74 ½ and 2 dam. 64 ½+10+2
Puhakka 46 and 10 dam. 41+5+10
Luukkanen 54 and 12 dam. 43+11+12
Lehtovaara 41½ and 10 dam. 24½+17+10
Katajainen 34½ and 6 dam. 30½+4+6
Puro 33 and 3 dam. 31+2+3
Karhila 32 1/4 and 4 dam. 30 1/4+2+4
Karhunen 31 ½ and 3 dam. 27 ½+4+3
Nissinen 30 1/3 and 3 dam. 28 1/3+2+3

Eero "Lekkeri" Kinnunen 22½ and 2 dam. 22½+0+2 as an extra, just because he was an interesting person

[PMoz99]

Thank you very much for the information Juha! This is very much appreciated, even if it has messed up my ace listings!
I take it all the figures all read - confirmed + probables + damaged.
Most are as I would have expected, except for Lehtovaara, whose probables make up almost half of the total claims attributed to him. A very high proportion.
But this causes me a problem. Would it be too much to ask if you could do just 3 more for me -
Vesa (29+3sh), Alakoski (28) and Jarvi (25+1sh)?
Either of these 3 may have more confirmed kills than Lehtovaara (24.5).
THANKS!
Peter

[Juha]

But one must remember that the lack of witness not necessarily meant that a claim could not be accepted, e.g. Tuck’s 2+0+1 Bf 109s on 21 June 1941 was accepted without any witness. IIRC Barkhorn got victories accepted without witness testimonies because he was such a reliable claimer and IIRC it seems that he was worth of that trust. IIRC later that became more common in the LW.

Also those claims counted as accepted by the HQ without witnesses had went through the confirmation process and accepted, some of them were real victories some were not but higher percentace of those were unfounded than of those with witness(es).

The main reason of the change of the FiAF’s system was that the share of unwitnessed claims increased and the HQ was worried on the possibility of the reduced reliability of the claims, which seems to have been justifiable. But that wasn’t the only reason for the change. Especially after the arrival of the first Bf 109s and the establishment of the LLv 34 as the Bf 109 unit led to intensive competition for kills, e.g. hunting I-153s of the VVS KBF over Lavansaari in spite of the heavy Soviet AA over the island. The HQ tried to stop that with orders and making claim acceptance stricter but with a little success. it correctly decided that the results were not worth of the risks to the meagre resources of the FiAF even if e.g. the CO of the LLv 34 (Luukkanen) opposed the actions of the HQ, he thought that the restrictions damped the offensive spirit of his pilots which he saw as an essential ingredient of successful fighter pilots. When nothing else helped, the HQ declared certain areas with powerful Soviet AA as no-go areas for fighters and informed that no claims over those areas would be accepted.

After all that bla-bla here is what was asked (and yes, conf+prob+dam)
Vesa 30 ½ and 1 dam 28 ½+2+1
Alakoski 28 and 3 dam 22+6+3
Järvi (note the dots above the a) 25 ½ and 2 vaur 23 ½+2+3 (but Järvi’s claims are more problematic than those of Alakoski)

Juha

[PMoz99]

Juha, thank you again for your most informative and helpful reply. The bla-bla is most welcome.
I know that some of the probables will be right, and some not. The difficulties in determining that are too numerous to overcome - loss of records, no time to spot a/c crash, no witness, no ground or enemy confirmation, unreliable claimer, and so on. I generally pay some regard to the probables claims when "ranking" the aces, but as a rule of thumb might allocate 1 in 3 or 1 in 2.
It is very interesting to learn how the scoring variations developed. Simply not accepting claims from dangerous areas seems an excellent final solution to a difficult problem to me.
Oh, and I haven't worked out how to do the special characters for umlaut etc in this forum.
Thank you again
Peter

[knusel]

Dear Juha,

Peter is right, your explanations are excellent.
I'm always keen on indentifying top-aces-by plane.
Can you tell me if Wind or Juutilainen has more Brewster kills when probables are not counted ?

Have a nice Friday,

Michael

[PMoz99]

Yes, that would be interesting to know. I have 3 Osprey books with info on the Finns (Buffalo Aces, Finnish Aces, Lelv24), and while they are generally reasonable for info, NONE of them has any detail on probables.
Cheers
Peter