ham

No, sorry. Haven't encountered one. True if you can read the finnish version. Out of curiosity I read the english version and it's terrible. Lots of cuts made for some reason, the general quality of the translation is bad and there are some outright mistranslations. Also the diffrent accents which made the finnish version so special are all gone, of course.

Unfortunatetly there isn't that many good sources on Winter War in English. Most of the good books and book series of the finnish wars are only in Finnish. Soviet era history writing places little emphasis on the finnish front and isn't exactly trustworthy on all occasions. There are quite a few very detailed books available about Winter War in finnish but the Trotter's book is only on available in English that I have encountered and actually read. IIRC it gives a pretty good account of the events although there were few places where the translator (a historian himself) had correcting footnotes but it was mostly just some details. Calling Finnish army well supplied or equipped during the Winter War is outright false. Especially the lack of artillery ammunition, lack of modern AT weapons ( and the scarcity of outdated equipment) and even the lack of clothing. Men generally had proper winter clothing, especially those who came from the country side, but that was their own not distributed. Also in almost every arm of the army equipment varied a lot as it was from diffrent decades (and in some cases, centuries) and from diffrent countries of origin which meant more suppily trouble with spare parts and diffrent calibres. In continuation war the suppily and equipment situation was much better but still hunger was common friend for the finnish soldier. The Winter War is considered victorious war here as the country managed to avoid the fate of the Baltic States but at the end of the War the situation was extremely critical. Finland simply could have not hold the current front for much longer. Small country was exhausted. Somebody mentioned German aid and training but that belongs to the Continuation War, not to Winter War. Germany and Russia were allies at this point. In fact, Germany seized a shipment of supplies send by Italy. Besides, German training of the army would probably not have been that usefull. The basic order of the service was setup originally in the german fashion ( jaeger's training and fighting in Germany WWI and returning to the country to form the core of the white army in the Civil War) but doctrine and tactics were formed according to the demands of the finnish enviroment. In fact, during the Continuation War SS Nord for example performed quite badly compared to accompanied finnish units. Mechanical training concerning equipment was totally another matter during the continuation war, but it was mostly done in Germany for smaller number of people who then took the knowledge back. International volunteers and help didn't manage to be taken in to service untill the war was over, with the exception of swedish volunteers who took a responsibility of a part of the front at the north and thus freed finnish troops to the crucial battles at the isthmus. In both winter war and continuation war, the food suppily wasn't that diffrent for Finnish or Russian side. At the end, the Russian soldier might have been fed better. Finland had poor harvests as most of the men were mobilized in the army ( around 11% of the population, generally thought that 10% of the population would be the upper limit ) and starving the country ( by witholding the wheat shipments ) was one way Germany tried to affect on Finnish policies. You probably are thinking of a special case/incident with one of the motti (encirclement) battles that took place. There were a lot of diffrent fronts and battles during the winter war with quite varied battlefields and tactics. It wasn't all trench warfare nor it was all mobile forest warfare. It was rather that Stalin seemed to believe that the help by western allies to Finland was really coming and that it could make a diffrence.Finns were as eager to negotiate before the situation became unmanageable and thus the terms harsher. Finland simply was exhausted, the country was small (in population) and poor. Stalin on the other hand could wait for awhile and was already preparing for the final attack on the summer '40 as the treaty would make the borders in the south very hard to defend (which is why the Salpa line was constructed). But this time Hitler already saw usefulness of Finland to his Barbarossa and when Molotov asked 'permission' to "finally take care of Finland matter" according to the Ribbentrop treaty, Hitler declined. The threat from Russia between Winter War and Continuation War was very real and there some large scale fortification projects took place, the biggest being of course Salpa line, parts of which still stand. First part in a sense true, second false. On a SC2 level finnish advantages of doctrine, relatively good mobility from low tech equipment (skis instead of half tracks/tanks, horses instead of cars etc) tactical flexibility and the training of junior officers to make independent decisions are quite hard to simulate. Which isn't a unique problem, in most grand level wargames simulating Finland historically correct has been a bit of a problem. In most games the equipment and suppily values are put higher than they should be to get the historically realistic outcomes or in some games, they are put where they should be which usually results in ahistorical results. Probably giving the units a good experience boost is the way to go in SC2s case. Anyway, if there is need for me to write a reply, expect it to take awhile as I'll be spending the next week in forest.

If you would like to learn more about Winter War, here is a good site to begin, Winter War dot com. Quite a lot of information about battles, tactics, weapons, forces and so forth. Definatetly worth a visit.

Firstly, in Czarist Russia Finland had strong autonomy - own money, own postal system, own parlament and so forth. Also Finland wasn't part of czarist Russia more than 100 years. Secondly, Stalin did demand an unconditional surrender but that changed after Finnish victories in Tali-Ihantala area. Actually after winter war Soviets were poised to finish the job they started, but they acted so late that this time Hitler already saw the usefullness of Finland in his eastern campaign and declined Molotov's request to be given free hands conserning Finland. Early in the continuation war when it looked like Germany might win it, Russians wanted Finland out of the war at almost any cost. But finns thought these terms were too harsh and declined (a bit ironically really, since the final peace treaty was much harsher). After Stalingrad when it was clear to all that Germany was going to lose the war, Finland tried to get out of the war. However, the peace proposals were still too hard to agree on when the army stood far in the eastern Karelia. In 1944 when it was only matter of time untill Germany collapses Russia declined to discuss any other peace proposal than unconditional surrender. After the strategic attack was defeated in the defensive victories of Tali-Ihantala (largest battle in nordic countries ever) and in the battles at Ilomantsi area Soviet Union was ready to discuss negotiated peace. Both sides knew that once Germany is down, Finland alone won't stand a chance against all the weight of Russia - not for long anyhow. So it was understandable for Finland to agree on harsh peace terms even though the army was undefeated. Why did Soviets agree on peace then? 1) They needed their troops for the push to Berlin and to the 'liberation' of eastern Europe. Renewing the offensive against Finland would have caused valuable time since most of the troops weren't in any condition to push on after being repulsed. Actually even that late in the war Soviets lost 2 divisions in Ilomantsi to encirclements and bulk of the forces at the isthmus had to be refitted - so fast conquest of Finland was out of question. Getting a good foothold in central Europe was far more valuable than anything that could have been gained at Finland. So the troops were directed there. 2) They got most of what they wanted on the peace accord - Petsamo, Karelian Isthmus (buffer for Leningrad) and a military base inside Finland, right next to the capital. 3) They got rid of German forces in Finland with fighting by proxy and free'd their own to the more important fight in center. 4) No doubtedly Stalin felt that Finland could be dealt with later on if necessary after Germany had fallen. Also he might have hoped for communist revolution in Finland to happen. Then why didn't a third war happen between USSR and Finland after Germany fell? 1) Finland did it's utmost to show that it posed no threat to USSR and obeyed the peace terms to the letter and payed all the war reparations on time (so efficiently and so on time that later on the amount of reparations was cut). 2) USSR didn't have much to gain in Finland anymore. They got Petsamo and the Isthmus on peace treaty. 3) Cold war. Attacking to Finland would have driven Sweden right into the arms of west. Also new weapons technology changed the need for strategic bases (even the base they got in the peace was given back to Finland long before the 'rent pact' ended). Also it would have not served their interests globally to attack small, non hostile country. 4) As 'asekätkentä' = 'weapon hiding' case showed, there was strong will for even guerilla war if regular army would have been defeated in a possible war. The costs of such a war would have far outweighted any possible gain. At that time Finland wasn't very industrialized, it was a farming country with very little of natural resources. 5) Possibly the finnish conduct in the war helped us here too - ie neither attacking Leningrad nor trying to cut the Murmansk railway despite strong German pressure and halting offensive operations once favorable defensive lines were reached. Stalin did say in Teheran, '43, that although Finland have committed as cruel acts against Russians as Germans, she deserves to be taken into account, since she had fought so bravely for it's independence Hope that helps. [ May 16, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: ham ]

Actually the land immediatetly north of leningrad would have meant giving away the so called Mannerheim line without a fight. Also they demanded right for military bases, just like they did for Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. See where that lead those countries. Finnish forces didn't participate in the Siege. They didn't bomb the city and didn't make any effort to attack it. Also they didn't try to establish contact with German forces once they reached Tikhvin from the Svir positions (this would have meant cutting of Leningrad). Also finnish units didn't try to cut the Lend-Lease route from Murmansk since that would have meant USA declaring war for Finland. Soviets blindly bombed finnish cities and civilians. Particularly during the 'peace bombings' they tried to level the city of Helsinki but failed. Also during the war Soviet 'Partisan' units (not really partisans since they were military units that came from the soviet side of the front) attacked several nonprotected villages, butchered all residents and reported these as destroyed 'military bases'. About Russia being generous in 1944. They tried to conquer the country for once and for all but in the battles of Tali-Ihantala and in Ilomantsi region the initial assault was stopped and some of the forces destroyed. At that point when the strategic offensive didn't lead to initial success Russians withdrew bulk of their forces which they needed for the drive to Berlin. At first Russians demanded unconditional surrender (in later in the war when it was evident that Germany will lose, in the early war they would have settled for negotiated peace but the terms where too harsh for finns to accept). Especially during the early stages of their strategic offensive in '44 which gained ground fast. But once the offensive was repulsed and the need to get Berlin before western allies (and conquer most of eastern Europe in the process) got more critical they settled for negoatiated peace. "Nobody respects a country with a poor army. I raise my toast to finnish army" - Josef Stalin The time of armestice was kind of 'silent war', both sides used military recon units on the enemy side of the border and military aircraft crossed the borders several times on reconnaisance missions. During the armestice Salpa line, a very strong defensive position was build on finnish side of the new border. Actually there are quite a lot of remains of that line still (in the Reserve Office School some excersises where in the immeadiate vicinity of those remains). There was general feeling of waiting new war and in November 1940 Molotov asked for Hitler's permission to finish the conquest of Finland they tried to achieve in 1939, but Hitler declined (since he was already planning Barbarossa). Your perception of 'general humanity' was correct in the sense that the fighting between finnish and russian units usually didn't involve shooting of pow's or other atrocities common between germans and russians. I guess that's the diffrence when democracy fights dictatorship compared to battle of armies of two brutal dictators.

There is no uncertainty of those bombings. They were Russian bombers and several got shot down. It wasn't declaration of war as such, Finnish parlament noted that country was at war once Russian bombed several cities and civilian targets. That is very hard question. There was very widespread mistrust of USSR (no wonder, since they tried to conquer and annex the country just like Baltic states and poland) so atleast allying with Russia against Germany would have been right out. On the other hand, any power occupying Sweden would have been thought as hostile. Alliance with western powers against Germany that had occupied Sweden was certainly a plausible idea. But then again, the factors why western alliance didn't happen would have come to play. At that point German arms had defeated the western allies on the continent and Finns didn't see any chance of effective number of western troops making their way here. If west could have effectively guaranteered finnish sovereignty against Russia Finland most likely would have not fought the continuation war. Also after the winter 1940 Russia was prepared to finish the job they started but at this point German high command was against that move when Russian delegates discussed the issue with their German counterparts. That's true. During continuation war Finland was at war with Russia and UK, but not with USA. Anyway, here's an easy read summary of finnish participation in WWII for those interested: http://hkkk.fi/%7Eyrjola/war/finland/summary.html and timeline of highlights: http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror/sa-int/hist.html [ May 15, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: ham ]

Pictures from Winter War and from Continuation War - with captions both in finnish and in english. http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/ Especially in the continuation war gallery some rare color pictures. [ April 21, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: ham ]

Well worth a bump. Could a pretty pretty pretty pretty please with sugar on top help getting one or two more models to come alongside the fix ?

It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim. Further reading for the interested: http://www.mannerheim.fi

Finland wasn't a puppet regime. It was the only true democracy on the Axis side of the war. Although you are correct that the early German victories was the reason - Germany was viewed as the only country with enough power that could help us protect ourselfs against Stalin's maddness. Western allies failure to protect Poland, France, Holland and especially Denmark and Norway wasn't really convincing.

http://cm.cozog.com/ and terrain.

Bump for great site. Upload more guys =)

Hmm. Couldn't you fix Finland too in your 'patch' ?

Good and interesting post TN, thanks.

6) Finnish Winter Uniforms

Well lets keep this thing *bump*ed untill he comes back.

It's not a question of how many tuliannos the battery has, its the question how much of its fire is given to the certain FO. I was trained as FO and the times I acted as the Company Chief of Fire (Tjpääl) normally a company was given 0,3-0,6 tuliannos / artillery unit on defence which was then split even more (between the fo's in the platoons and my personal reserve) and given to the individual FOs, a bit more on the attack. So if the FO's in CMBB represent just single FO, the amount of fire they posses seems about right from my perspective (of course one FO could posses fire of several arty units). Yes, my experience is from today's practises but some things haven't changed a lot in the finnish artillery. The 'basic' stuff is still taught in case the more advanced means fail. Hell, we even still used the stereo rangefinders (yes we had lasers too but the optical is better in some situations) which had the german eagle and swastikas still in place =) FoxBat wrote Well the article didn't really tell a lot about the artillery doctrine and especially not about the details. Don't know if the details differ much from the other nation's practises (no knowledge about those) apart from Russian arty practise. And those two atleast do differ a lot. [ October 17, 2002, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: ham ]

Another "Yes please" for mod forum here.

My grandfather from father's side joined up as a volunteer to Finnish Army and fought in the continuation war untill got wounded. [ October 12, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: ham ]

Err ? Their last breakthrough attempt was defeated in Tali-Ihantala. In Ilomantsi region IIRC 2 attacking divisions were encircled. Thats why Russians accepted the negoatiated peace since they couldn't occupy Finland with this go and their divisions were needed for the drive to Berlin.

Heh poor conscripts.

Quote by Steve on other thread: Lets hope 4th for finnish release then.

Scenario Talk forum is pretty inactive, how about combining that with the proposed mod forum and create Scenario/Modification Forum ?

Usually referred just as Carl Gustav Mannerheim. Actually there absolutely is not a 'von' in his name. If you are intrested about him, http://www.mannerheim.fi should be a good read.

Haven't heard about German deception inciting the purges, could you tell a bit more ?