Canada Guy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I am not sure of the accuracy of this post but even if 1/2 is true, I want him on my side in any fight between me and a few hundred men. I wonder how this guy will be modeled? --------- Simo Hayha: Soviet Invasion of Finland, 1939 Simo Hayha was a pretty regular guy in peace time. He was in the military for one mandatory year in the 1930s and then he turned to farming. But when the Soviet Union invaded Finland, he decided to become a one man wrecking machine to the Red Army. Much of the fighting happened in the forests of Finland. So Hayha figured he could best help out by grabbing his rifle, some canned food and hide out in the forest sniping Russians all day. He did this in 5-6 feet of snow in the forest in temperatures as low as -40 degrees F. The Red Army knew they were taking heavy casualties in those Finnish woods, but they figured, that’s the cost of war. Then they found out it was one hick farmer with a rifle. So they started to send out teams to kill ‘The White Death’ as he was known, because of his white camouflage suit. The first team the Russians sent out, Hayha killed. The second team, a group of counter snipers, Hayha killed. Over 100 days, this bad ass killed 542 men with his farmer’s rifle. He killed another 150 with his submachine gun. The Red Army started to carpet bomb everywhere they thought he could be. He did once get hit by bombs but the shrapnel didn’t hurt him. He did finally get shot in the head on March 6, 1940, and half his head was gone. But he still did not die. He regained consciousness on the day the war with the Soviets ended. By the way, this bad ass gets genius bonus points for putting snow in his mouth so his exhaled breaths were not visible in the subzero temperatures http://totallytop10.com/history/top-10-military-bad-asses-and-the-1-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-bad-ass-of-all-time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You might like this article, it's along these lines but better written. I find that while Cracked.com is a bit silly and sometimes their research is off, they have some of the best military related "lists of things". It's also hilarious more often than not. Edit: On second glance, looks like the writer of your list plagiarized the crap out of this list 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Awesome story - thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Simo Häyhä was a legend, but those kill scores are unproven and unlikely. The more realistic figure is around 200 kills. Oh, and Cracked and the like are always BS, even when they are correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You meant ONLY 200 kills. Which still puts him the same category as the plague. I'm guessing his daughter's boyfriend were extremely polite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And Baron Munchausen was the greatest fighter of his age, and he ... No wait... Some people will believe anything. Yeah, that's more like it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 With all due respect to the ueberfinns and their sharpened pine cones... Perhaps it might also be worth asking the rhetorical question: OK, Simon Haya just maybe did all the things that the adverstising guys claimed, but at the end of the day, what Slavic language do they speak in Karelia and Pentsamo for the last half century? And which very big non Finno-Urgric country does Finland still really, really avoid making mad? Individual combat achievement is all very good, but avoiding wars your side can't win is even better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 With all due respect to the ueberfinns and their sharpened pine cones... Perhaps it might also be worth asking the rhetorical question: OK, Simon Haya just maybe did all the things that the adverstising guys claimed, but at the end of the day, what Slavic language do they speak in Karelia and Pentsamo for the last half century? And which very big non Finno-Urgric country does Finland still really, really avoid making mad? Individual combat achievement is all very good, but avoiding wars your side can't win is even better. And how exactly should the Finns have done that? By giving up half their country or let those Bolshie bastards simply march in and unleash their usual terror? Your reaction really surprises me, Bigduke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And how exactly should the Finns have done that? By giving up half their country or let those Bolshie bastards simply march in and unleash their usual terror? Your reaction really surprises me, Bigduke. They ended up losing more territory than the Soviets originally demanded. Plus a lot of dead Finns and some of their cities bombed. I guess that didn't work out so well, did it? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 They ended up losing more territory than the Soviets originally demanded. Plus a lot of dead Finns and some of their cities bombed. I guess that didn't work out so well, did it? Michael They shouldn't have joined Hitler in 1941. In 1939 they had no choice but to fight. What are you suggesting btw? Simply give in to dictators and terror? I can't believe these reactions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Good grief. Don't feed the troll. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I wonder how this guy will be modeled? Oh wow, that guy is a must-have ! I want a DLC with him as unit and everyone who buys it will win every MP game because this "bad ass" is invisible and can kill 3+ enemy per minute... Oh, by the way... Did you think a Captain America DLC would be cool ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Good grief. Don't feed the troll. We already did...;-D http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101743 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRMC1879 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And how exactly should the Finns have done that? By giving up half their country or let those Bolshie bastards simply march in and unleash their usual terror? Your reaction really surprises me, Bigduke. His location says kiev - so why does his reaction surprise you ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRMC1879 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 They ended up losing more territory than the Soviets originally demanded. Plus a lot of dead Finns and some of their cities bombed. I guess that didn't work out so well, did it? Michael So I guess us Brits reallly should have just given up to hitler ... we might then have kept our empire for a while longer and not had to completely bankrupt ourselves paying off our debt to the americans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 His location says kiev - so why does his reaction surprise you ? Because he usually is a very sensible and very intelligent member of this forum. Kiev ain't Russia btw. It is Ukraine. But let's not insult Bigduke. He usually knows more than I will ever learn and his judgement is usually very sound too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 So I guess us Brits reallly should have just given up to hitler ... we might then have kept our empire for a while longer and not had to completely bankrupt ourselves paying off our debt to the americans. Excellent point, JRMC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temee Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 its true hayhas(häyhä) number of kills was more like 200, but still he did it in only 3months. His "farmers rifle" was actually "pystykorva",a finnish modelation of mosin-nagant and (as mentioned earlier) used snow-white cloaths n eat snow but also preferred rifle without scope (sun didn't reflect at scopeglass and was quicker to aim), moreover he used to freeze snow around him with water(to prevent snow from blasting when shot). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi, The first team the Russians sent out, Hayha killed. The second team, a group of counter snipers, Hayha killed. Over 100 days, this bad ass killed 542 men with his farmer’s rifle. He killed another 150 with his submachine gun. This will be mythology... but there is no real harm in that. All nations have their myths that make them feel good about themselves. It is called being normal. But it has nothing to do with military history. It’s a modern medieval myth like King Arthur is to the Cornish. The Finns started out with better doctrine and training than the Soviets. And then as the war went on the gap closed between the two. War being a form of accelerated evolution. If a player stays in the field it closes the gap with the opponent that started with the more effective methods. This happened with the Finish Soviet portion of WWII as well. All good stuff, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hee hee. The pointy-sticks-vs-T34s-topic is always a crowdpleaser! The point I was trying to make was that if you pay too attention to individual fighters, or indeed just tactical capacity, then you risk losing sight of what the war goals are, and you run an even bigger risk of misunderstanding what a realist war goal is. In the case of the Finns during WW2, well, the Swedes stayed neutral and they didn't get invaded by the Soviets. That seems to me to have been a pretty good outcome from the Swedish point of view. I find it hard to see how what happened to Finland during WW2 was a result preferable to what happend to the Swedes. Which raises the question: Perhaps the Finns should have considered NOT throwing in with Hitler, and just acceped the loss of Karelia and Pechenga/Pentsamo and that bit in the middle and those little Baltic islands where they spoke Swedish, rather than trying to get it back by helping invade the Germans fight the SU in 1941? Hindsight says that would have been the better move. At the time, of course, Germany looked pretty unbeatable and that probably had an effect on the Finnish decision to attack the SU. (Or maybe one should say "invade". True as of June 1941 the Finns doubtless thought they were fighting to regain what had been lost in the Winter War. But on the other hand those very post-Winter War borders would up being the final legitimate border - with said legitmacy ultimately enforced by the Karelian and Lenigrad Fronts. But I wonder if another factor in the thinking of the Finnish leaders was: our forces are so superior to the Soviets in terms of quality, we don't have to worry too much about the Soviet edge in manpower and material. Whatever the Finnish line of thinking was, I think we can say it was flawed. Any state policy whose ultimate result is the assault of a pair of Red Army Fronts with all the trimmings on one's own forces, cannot be considered a wise move. However, I give the Finns serious credit for bailing on the Germans and talking peace when the jig was obviously up. Perhaps even worse than having Red Army Fronts take a swing at your army is having the Soviets occupy your country. Just ask, well, pretty much any one in East Europe. Anyway, history is littered with examples of countries boasting a superior tactical system who decided they could fight outnumbered and win, you know, that their military was so awesome they no longer had to pay attention to things to traditional war success factors like attrition, material, or public will to prevail. It's a pretty stupid approach and Hitler was only its best-known proponent. I can think of more than a few very recent examples where superior tactical system = eventually losing a war by attrition. I'd be curious to know how the Continuation War is taught in Finnish schools: Victory, Defeat, or what? Because he usually is a very sensible and very intelligent member of this forum. Kiev ain't Russia btw. It is Ukraine. But let's not insult Bigduke. He usually knows more than I will ever learn and his judgement is usually very sound too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 In the case of the Finns during WW2, well, the Swedes stayed neutral and they didn't get invaded by the Soviets. Verbosity doesn't cover your ignorance. Your problem is that you are very opionated on the subject yet you lack even the most basic understanding of history. You have shown this propensity many times before. It is entertaining to watch you make a fool of yourself, sure, but for the sake of everyone who is eating your bait, just stop. Go and read on the subject (Mauno Jokipii is a good starting point) before you throw out idiotic comparisons between Sweden and Finland. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Huh? Actually I don't have too much of an opinion on the subject, that's why I'm asking how the Continuation War is considered in Finland. It seems to me like you can make a case from a hard-nosed realpolitik POV that it was not a good idea; it put Finland on the side of the odious Hitler regime and ultimately Finland lost lives and material and gained no territory from the war. True, the Finns gave the Soviets plenty of experience on how bloody it would be if they ever decided to invade the rest of Finland, but I'm not so sure that was a great lesson to teach the Soviets, if they decided a goal was important they were willing to pour a lot of bood into the effort. As I said, a direct end result of the Continuation War was two Soviet Fronts inside Finland and attacking. If the goal of a government is to protect its citizens, can we not ask whether the Mannerheim government did the right thing by setting a chain of events into motion that led to those Red Army forces attacking Finland? Perhaps asking such a question flies in the face of the "fight outnumbered and win" doctrine. And if the issue here is that I am opinionated against that doctrine, well guilty as charged I guess. But if the comparison with the Swedes is somehow inappropriate then substitute the Swiss, they also stayed neutral without too many ill effects. In any case sorry if I gave offense, I didn't mean to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 IIRC didn't the Soviets invade Finland around the time they took over the Baltic countries? So Finland sorta joined the Axis and tried to take back what they lost. However, despite Hitler's urgings, they refused to go any further as they were already looking towards post-war reconciliation with the Soviets. The Soviets' terrible performance at that time was one of the reasons giving Hitler confidence to invade the USSR. But, as we know, the Soviets came back with overwhelming strength and that is when Finland lost even more territory to end up with the borders where they are today. Leastways that was the history I was taught... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbfg Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The history of Finland and Russia in the 20th century are not even slightly like the history of Sweden and Russia or the history of Switzerland and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland It is not possible to seperate their decision to fight, especially in the context of the recently concluded Winter War, from the rest of their recent relationship. It might seem, with the benefit of a 21st century perspective and the knowledge of what was to follow, that it was a crazy idea. Right now I'm struggling to think of a major 20th century decision that wasn't insane, with the possible exception of my mum and dad not going to the pub one night in 1973. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You didn't give an offense so much as wander into an already off-topic and misinformed thread (what does Häyhä have to do with CMBN? And why is it that people admire killers so much, whereas no one ever mentions the medics, surgeons and others who saved so many lives, including Häyhä after he got shot?), then throw it even further off-topic with comments having nothing to do with either Häyhä or CMBN. And the whole case of Finland's involvement with Germany is simply too nuanced and complex to really get into here. It's certainly correct that Finnish government could have chosen to keep a distance to Germany after Winter War. But, that's where everything becomes harder. With Finland maintaining neutrality, would Germany have rejected Soviet's plan to finish Finland off a year later? Would Finland have been able to get grain from Germany? Would Finland have been able to maintain neutrality in Lapland and Petsamo (which was still Finnish territory after WW2) with Germans in Norway and Soviets in Murmansk, or would either side invaded the neutral territory anyway? What would the Soviet naval base in Hanko have meant? It's impossible to tell without a crystal ball. But one thing is sure: Finland was not in a situation comparable to Sweden. Not that Sweden had it completely cushy with Germany invading Norway and Denmark and Soviets invading Finland and Brits and French wanting to stop ore shipments from Kiruna to Germany and submarines and mines in the Baltic Sea etc. To answer the question about the topic in schools, it is used to illustrate how historians work: at first after the wars the 'we were drawn into Continuation War without any choice' was seen as the correct version but later on new interpretations came forward, showing it as an intentional strategic choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.