the I-15s and I-16s were badly outdated, the Hurricane was developed as a cheap fighter from the beginning, and while poor in performance was quite cheap, and its modular nature allowed damaged parts to be swapped out without sending the whole aircraft away, so more aircraft could be kept in front-line service. Meanwhile, the La-5 was actually a capable (if complicated and short-ranged) dog-fighter at low levels, likewise the La-7 lacked only a reliable engine and in the early models, sufficient armament, and I don't know how you could call the spitfires bad.Mostly I-15s and 16s, but also MiG-3s, Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, La-5s, La-7s, P-40s,Jak-1s, Jak-7s, even Spitfires
the I-15s and I-16s were badly outdated, the Hurricane was developed as a cheap fighter from the beginning, and while poor in performance was quite cheap, and its modular nature allowed damaged parts to be swapped out without sending the whole aircraft away, so more aircraft could be kept in front-line service. Meanwhile, the La-5 was actually a capable (if complicated and short-ranged) dog-fighter at low levels, likewise the La-7 lacked only a reliable engine and in the early models, sufficient armament, and I don't know how you could call the spitfires bad.
Just to point out... not in Winter War, but in Continuation War.
Mostly I-15s and 16s, but also MiG-3s, Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, La-5s, La-7s, P-40s,Jak-1s, Jak-7s, even Spitfires
the I-15s and I-16s were badly outdated, the Hurricane was developed as a cheap fighter from the beginning, and while poor in performance was quite cheap, and its modular nature allowed damaged parts to be swapped out without sending the whole aircraft away, so more aircraft could be kept in front-line service. Meanwhile, the La-5 was actually a capable (if complicated and short-ranged) dog-fighter at low levels, likewise the La-7 lacked only a reliable engine and in the early models, sufficient armament, and I don't know how you could call the spitfires bad.
A good read about this subject: http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm
Summary:
-Finns used 239s, not 339s, and the engine used was refurbished R-1820 G-5
-Better armament and sights
-Finns took the Zero-approach and stripped their fighters almost bare from armor
And yes, most of all they had really innovative and up-to-date tactics and training http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm - alledgedly FAF was the first AF to use "finger four" formation, for example.
Oh, right, my bad. Still some of those aircraft weren't in themselves particularly good (the MiG-3 for example was pretty poor at low altitude, and possessed an abysmal rate-of-climb).I think the point he was trying to make was that the other planes, unlike the I-15/16s (Las, Yaks, P-40, Hurri, Spits, etc) were roughly design contemporaries with the Buffalo, were on paper better, and still the Finns gave more than they got in the Brewster. My answer would be that by the time the Finns were facing really good dogfighters like La-5s, La-7's, most Finnish pilots had ditched their Buffalos for Bf-109Gs.