Winter War study

[JohnT]

Hi all
I've tried a "Winter war study" that is a number of scenarios with a common denominator. In this case I have the Soviet side constant in all scenarios while I change the defender.

Since we all knows that the Finns had a superb army in 1939 while the Danes where totaly incompetent I started with the modified Danish OB.
found here

I portraited a resonable batalion front defended by two "rifle" companies with Batalion's own heavy unit.
We know the road will be an enemy Schwerpunkt so regimental AT-resources are also available and if things gets too though there is corps artillery available.

I modified the Attacker to get a force where the AI would win most of the time if playing AI vs AI.
Then I started to change the defenders force picking a similar batalion force but from different countries.

The attached zip file contains scenario 360 to 367.


Best Regards
John T.

[pdoktar]

Materially the finnish army in �39 was very badly equipped (hence the molotov cocktails), but the fighting spirit and winter-war prowess carried the 105 days. However new studies show that had the war continued for just a few weeks more, the army would�ve collapsed in critical SE Finland.

BTW the finnish minister of defence at the time, Juho Niukkanen, is freely translated as "John The Meagre" or "John Very Economical" take that as a punch-line for the troopers in a dark wintery night..

[Mobhack]

One wonders if the Soviets had attacked in a sane season for offensive movement (ie not the winter!) - would they have done materially better in that "what if" later kick-off date Russo-Finnish war?. (esp with regard to the Finnish ski troops atvantages)

Or- would the Finns also have been better prepared by then, (more supplies of critical kit delivered) if the Russians had waited till (say) May??

Cheers
Andy

[pdoktar]

Probably they would�ve done a lot better, as they could�ve used the full power of their mechanized and motorized forces, that were restricted to a few roads in winter. However the tactics and morale of the Red Army would�ve remained the same. Even during the Continuation War regular russian units were severly handicapped only by the presence of finnish and Karelian forests and feared to venture out to patrol and establish small bases to cut finnish flanking manouvers.

As for preparedness and kit, I�d say yes. Just before the war AT weapons were on the purchase list, as were artillery ammunition and personal equipment. However the winter saved the day, as when the finns were cold, the poor russians, some units taken from Southern Soviet Union, were even colder. But the grand-political scheme dictated Stalin�s decision to invade during winter, as German pressure and the russian need to close the Baltic sea, using Estonian and Finnish 12in coastal artillery batteries, was the main reason for the wintery invasion.

Fun fact #2: Just before the war, finns bought many thousands of light artillery shells from Sweden, only to find out that they were one millimeter too large (76mm vs 75mm) for the finnish guns.. think that in a cold winter night.

[JohnT]

Mobhack said:
One wonders if the Soviets had attacked in a sane season for offensive movement (ie not the winter!) - would they have done materially better in that "what if" later kick-off date Russo-Finnish war?. (esp with regard to the Finnish ski troops atvantages)

Or- would the Finns also have been better prepared by then, (more supplies of critical kit delivered) if the Russians had waited till (say) May??

Cheers
Andy

Even Finns quarrels when it comes to climate.
Frozen marsh and lakes with little snow are better terrain for tanks than soggy mash and water, while deep snow hindered movement all over the map so there is no clear answer. November wasn�t that silly timing- if you�d conquered the country in three weeks.

Temperatures should affect both sides evenly � given training and kit to stand the up to it.
I think there is agreement that the mottis where crushed quicker when soviets froze to death or at least had to spend most time to keep themselves alive from the climate.

The other part is if Germany anyhow would have invaded Norway in April 1940 and that would be a true disaster for Finland not evens the hopes of supply from anyone except the also surrounded Sweden.

Cheers
/John T.

[pdoktar]

Recent studies show that the finnish army most likely would�ve been crushed in a month or even few weeks, had the war continued. There�s still huge debate about this and other "stories" of finnish miitary history, only now really being openly debated and re-evaluated.

The Finlands drift to the German camp started very quickly after the Winter War, however there were many high-ranking officials who would�ve liked the country to remain neutral, and tried to keep good relations to England and USA.

[JohnT]

pdoktar said:
Recent studies show that the finnish army most likely would�ve been crushed in a month or even few weeks, had the war continued. There�s still huge debate about this and other "stories" of finnish miitary history, only now really being openly debated and re-evaluated.

Yes, I think this picture say's it all:
http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/..._FinDailyD.htm

pdoktar said:
Fun fact #2: Just before the war, finns bought many thousands of light artillery shells from Sweden, only to find out that they were one millimeter too large (76mm vs 75mm) for the finnish guns.. think that in a cold winter night.

Well, it's definite not a fact but one of the "stories".
The level of cooperation had gone further than that.
Compatibility issues had been discussed in detail, down to the chutes torpedoes where loaded into the subs, bomb and bomb racks of aircrafts and so on. The Finns had their russian legacy at 76,2mm guns and 7,62mm rifles while the Swedes where metric - 75mm and 6,5mm.

Although Bofors produced any calibre requested.
12 75mm guns where bought with 4000 rounds in October 39 from Sweden, but that�s closest to the story reality goes.

Cheers
/John T