Finland vs. USSR in CM2

[Lala]

Just curious. Will finnish troops get some extra points against Soviet army?

As you might know, in winter war 1939-1940 Finns really kicked ass. Result was somethin' like:

Finland: 21 396 KIA, 1434 MIA, 837 POW and

43 557 wounded.

USSR: 84 994 KIA+POW, 186 584 wounded,

51 892 sick and 9 614 frozen to death.

All this with smaller army 340 000 vs. 960 000. And maybe with worstest equipment in WW2.

Or will this whole game be from year 1941-1945?

[Jarmo]

41-45 only, I believe.

[BFCElvis]

My understanding is that CM2 will be set front time Germany invaded the USSR until the war is over.

There will be a CM? that is based on the early years of the war.

[Maximus]

Well now, I'm not so sure. In that CM2 preview article, Charles did say that the Finns will be in it, so one can only assume that there will be Winter War scenarios.

[The Commissar]

Lala,

Just because Soviet troops suffered from poor leadership and training in the Winter War does not warrant giving extra points to Finns. When the Winter War scenarios come around, I still want to have a chance to kill Finns. If they are given extra points as well as having the Soviet troops undertrained and with huge movement/morale/etc penalties, it would be too hard for the Soviet player and quite unrealistic. If anything, the Soviets would get more points since they did have a large numerical advantage.

Maximus,

That really doesnt mean anything. Finns fought the Soviets after the Winter War. I myself think that it is likely that we will see the Soviet invasion of Finland in CM4.

[Lala]

Yep. Thats true about Soviets suffering poor leadership, but just take a look the numbers how much more soviets got everything. more than 1000 howitzers and infantry guns more than Finns, with 2000 armours against 13 and lousy AT-guns (about 300 pcs) and more than 2000 fighters and bombers against various models of airplanes and only quantity of 121. I can say it was a miracle that Soviets didn't invade the whole Finland. (Only Carelia, islands of the Finland Bay and small parts of Lapland)

One main reason why Finns beated Soviets in a way was that Soviets suffered a lot of the Finlands terrain. Think about guy who hasn't seen a forest in his whole life and suddenly his in so thick forest that he allmost can't move.

And how do you explain the war in 1941-44? USSR didn't invade Finland.

About the AT guns in winter war. Finns had to put some tree to the tanks tracks to make them stop. Then they knocked the tanks door and throw some frags in. Quite HC wasn't it?

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lala:

And how do you explain the war in 1941-44? USSR didn't invade Finland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite true, Lala. Soviet began their offensive against Finland on 9 June 1944, taking Vyborg. On 19 September 1944 Finland officially surrendered to the Soviet Union.

[The Commissar]

If the Soviets decided to "invade" Finland in '44, they would have succeeded hands down. The Soviet Army of '44 was a different animal when compared to the Army of the late 30's and early 40's. Lessons were learned, equipment improved, veterans were formed and the troop morale was quite high.

The challenge for the Finnish player during any Winter War scenarios would be to take advantage of his higher experienced and better motivated troops. The challenge of the Soviet player would be to make his poorly trained and demorilized hordes overpower and crush the Finnish defenders. It could be done, and was done, for both sides. Unbalancing things by giving one side or the other extra points would just complicate things.

[Stalins Organ]

Make the Sov's Green and/or conscript, the Finns regular or better, and see what happens......

[Fishu]

Ski troops! ski troops!

That would even make them faster than their soviet counterpart.

Soviets had troubles mounting their troops on ski's.

Grisha, didn't they just sign peace trety, not literally "surrender"?

"In September 1944, Finland accepted severe Soviet peace terms. The treaty restored the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border."

If finns would of have surrender, then Finland would been communistic and not been able to keep its independence.

[Gyrene]

Ski troops, yes. Does it snow all year in Finland? There has to at least some semblance of summer in which the Russians would have the run the place, especially in 44 and later.

Guerilla resistance would surely last a while, but it would not stop the Russians any more effectively than the Germans stopped them from taking Berlin.

Gyrene

[Tero]

You are being too generous

>USSR: 84 994 KIA+POW, 186 584 wounded,

>51 892 sick and 9 614 frozen to death.

From www.winterwar.com

"The table below is provided by Valeriy Potapov and is based on the book mentioned below. The below data gives a total death count of 126 875.The Krivoshees's study came up with the figure of 264 908 wounded (not including the cases of sickness), thus giving the total number 391 783 Soviet casualties."

[ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

>Not quite true, Lala.

I think he meant occupy.

>Soviet began their offensive against Finland

>on 9 June 1944, taking Vyborg. On 19

>September 1944 Finland officially

>surrendered to the Soviet Union.

But it was not an unconditional surrender.

[Tero]

>If the Soviets decided to "invade" Finland

>in '44, they would have succeeded hands

>down.

Except they did decide to invade/attack/occupy in 1944 and they did not get a hands down victory.

>The Soviet Army of '44 was a different

>animal when compared to the Army of the late

>30's and early 40's. Lessons were learned,

>equipment improved, veterans were formed and

>the troop morale was quite high.

Quite true. But the Finnish equipment was also improved in the mean time so the match up was more equal in 1944 than it was in 1939. The initial 1939 assault had more chances in succeeding than the 1944 assault, relatively speaking. The disparity in arms and munitions was far greater in 1939 than it was in 1944.

>Unbalancing things by giving one side

>or the other extra points would just

>complicate things.

Agreed. I think the challenge is to make a viable model that allows alternate tactics to be used rather than gimmicks or unrealistic point value or other distortions.

[Tero]

>Ski troops, yes. Does it snow all year in

>Finland?

No. Most of the time anyway. There was a short hail storm last Friday and we are at the end of May for crying out loud.

The ski troops were not used in such an extent people like to believe. The "main" battle was fought in WWI style meat grinder in the Karelian Isthmus where the ski troops could not operate as freely as they could further up North.

>There has to at least some semblance of

>summer in which the Russians would have the

>run the place, especially in 44 and later.

Except the Soviet 1944 assault got blunted. The cease fire was signed with the Finnish army relatively intact. With over 400 000 men in arms and armed with pretty much the same weapons the Red Army was using but armed also with the latest German Pzfausts and Pzschrecks, VERY accurate artillery, fighting in familiar wooded terrain the Red Army would have had to get really serious if they would have wanted to subdue us Finns utterly and completely. That would have meant they would have had to have diverted more men and materiel from the fight against the Germans. They could have of course come back after Berlin was taken but by then the risk of the Western Allies intervening in favour of the Finns was too great so they opted to agree to a conditional cease fire, not unconditional surrender.

>Guerilla resistance would surely last a

>while, but it would not stop the Russians

>any more effectively than the Germans

>stopped them from taking Berlin.

I disagree. Look what happened later on in Afganistan and Chechenia. In 1944/45 the Soviet leaders had to take into account the expenses and the possibility of diverting badly needed resources to fight over an obscure piece or real estate which was occupied by a people willing to fight to the death. Their aspirations had been blunted already once in 1940. Finns had demonstrated their willingness and ability to fight eventhough outnumbered. Stalin did not toast many armies, he did toast the Finnish army.

By 1970's the Soviet and the Russian leaders had forgotten the lessons of Winter War and they payed dearly for that.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I disagree. Look what happened later on in Afganistan and Chechenia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The basic difference here is that in WWII the Soviet Army had a big head of steam behind it and blood in their eyes, although I doubt they had it half as bad for the Finns than they did for the Germans.

In Afghanistan there was little of the patriotic furor, but I do not at all discount the Finns' ability to defend their homeland.

At least they had the common sense not to take the war too far past their own borders,

Gyrene

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:

At least they had the common sense not to take the war too far past their own borders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the Finn's reluctance to advance too far from their own border in '41 - '43 led to the Soviets going easy on them in '44.

"No harm, no foul", as they say...

[Tero]

>The basic difference here is that in WWII

>the Soviet Army had a big head of steam

>behind it and blood in their eyes, although

>I doubt they had it half as bad for the

>Finns than they did for the Germans.

Propaganda does wonders. While they may not have had it as bad they still did attack us unprovoked. One noteworthy point: they did NOT surrender in droves when encircled during Winter War like they did when the Germans attacked them in 1941. They rather died in place than surrender. Even if they were on foreign soil wageing a war of aggression.

>In Afghanistan there was little of the

>patriotic furor, but I do not at all

>discount the Finns' ability to defend their

>homeland.

For all the differences in the circumstances the Soviets/Russians still discounted the ability of the Finns, the Afgans and the Chechens to defend their homeland.

>At least they had the common sense not to

>take the war too far past their own borders,

Well, that is the ultimate question. There has been debating going on as to what the Soviets considered their "own borders". Finland had been a part of the Imperial Russia so the Western border of Finland had been the western border of the Imperial Russia in this region. I have read comments from Russian writers who say in effect the area was donated by Lenin under duress and should have been restored to the rule of the Soviets/Russians later on.

[Tero]

>I believe the Finn's reluctance to advance

>too far from their own border in '41 - '43

>led to the Soviets going easy on them in

>'44.

Well..... you are correct in essence.

Our army did advance quite far into the Soviet Karelia north of the lake Ladoga. But Mannerheim absolutely and cathegorically refused to take any action against Leningrad. And that did save our butt from being Russificated.

>"No harm, no foul", as they say...

Stalin had miscalculated and shot himself in the foot during and after Winter War when he thought the Finns would automatically allow Germans to use Finnish soil to attack Leningrad. He attacked and the Red Army performance during Winter War was one of the most crusial factors that made Hitler decide he could take on the USSR. Stalin had made sure we could only choose Germany in the upcoming event by antagonistic diplomacy after Winter War.

In short: it was a selfinflicted harm brough on by a selfcomitted foul.

[Kallimakhos]

I wonder how the ski-troops will be modelled in CM2, if at all. To my understandin ski's are in most respects equivalent to bicycles in summer, they were used in moving from place A to B, not in fighting and certainly never in assaults (you need both hands in cross-country skiing if you want any speed). BTS have clearly stated that there will be no bicycles or motorbikes and I would imagine the same will apply to skis.

[Fishu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Ski troops, yes. Does it snow all year in Finland? There has to at least some semblance of summer in which the Russians would have the run the place, especially in 44 and later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe.. Finland isn't a northpole.

theres months of no snow and more when going south.

I do live in southern part and haven't seen snow for months :I

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

I believe the Finn's reluctance to advance too far from their own border in '41 - '43 led to the Soviets going easy on them in '44.

"No harm, no foul", as they say...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right in the sense that in the end the Soviets didn't claim Finland to surrender unconditionally. But the Soviet assault in '44 wasn't "easy" by any means. The deciding battles at Tali-Ihantala were the largest EVER fought in the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden).

Some facts according to http://www.warlinks.com/pages/hyry.htm

The battlefield comprised 100 sq. km.

The Finnish defender had 31 battalions and the Soviet aggressor at least 108 battalions. (50 000 men against 150 000)

At the focal point the five Finnish divisions were fighting against 12 Soviet divisions.

So the battle was larger than that of El Alamein, for example.

In the focal point of battle the Red Army had in average 130 to 150 artillery pieces plus 59 rocket launcher barrels per front kilometer, that makes 520 to 900 field pieces plus 230 to 350 rocket launcher barrels for the same 4 to 6 km length of front. However, at Tali-Ihantala the Finnish artillery was able to concentrate the fire of all the 250 guns available in any single target within range in matter of minutes (thanks to the advanced artillery doctrine).

As to air forces, the Soviet Air Force had 1500 fighters, bombers and ground-attack planes. The Finnish Air Force had 60 serviceable two-engined bombers and in average 30 airworthy Messerschmitt 109 fighters plus obsolete types. The Luftwaffe sent a task force of 35 Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers and 35 FW-190 Jabo fighter-bombers.

The Red Army had about 450 tanks and assault guns, the Finnish Army had 25 German assault guns and a dozen captured T-34 and KV-1 tanks.

---------------------------------------------

"Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army."

I. Stalin

1948

Ari

[ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: Ari Maenpaa ]

[Tero]

>I wonder how the ski-troops will be modelled

>in CM2, if at all. To my understandin ski's

>are in most respects equivalent to bicycles

>in summer, they were used in moving from

>place A to B, not in fighting and certainly

>never in assaults (you need both hands in

>cross-country skiing if you want any speed).

Sorry to disappoint you. They WERE used in fighting and certainly quite often in assaults. The Finnish could not, contrary to popular beliefs, walk over the waist deep snow that the Red Army soldiers had to slug through.

As to fighting on skis: ever wondered why the histories and legends speak about Finnish ski troops armed with Suomi SMG's (the one that was the inspiration for the PPSh) and not the Mosin-Nagant rifle ? Could it be that the Suomi SMG was designed for such a use in mind; compact and easy to carry (for use in closed confines of the forest), high rate of fire (to emphasize the shock effect and maximize damage), 70 round drum magazine (to last you a lifetime of the few seconds of combat). You can certainly use the rifle as well when skiing but the SMG was bettersuited to the tactics.

>BTS have clearly stated that there will be

>no bicycles or motorbikes and I would

>imagine the same will apply to skis.

It should not apply to skis. The skis were most certainly used in the CM/CM2 scope of combat.

[Barleyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

Quite true. But the Finnish equipment was also improved in the mean time so the match up was more equal in 1944 than it was in 1939. The initial 1939 assault had more chances in succeeding than the 1944 assault, relatively speaking. The disparity in arms and munitions was far greater in 1939 than it was in 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an obscure tidbit, germans shipped large amount of shrecks and fausts to Finland in time for the summer -44 assault. This was done after the president gave his personal word he wouldn't negotiate peace with russians.

So after the russian invasion failed, the president stepped down from office and the acting president took care of the peace negotiations.

Also recently opened archives suggest it was meant all along to annex Finland in late 40s or early 50s. Hence the "military consultations" clause in the "friendship, cooperation and assistance"-treaty. Evidently the "They'd be more trouble than they're worth" opinion won.

I also read from somewhere that Ribbentrop called Molotov, quite drunk, to apologize for breaking his word when the Barbarossa was on.

I quess even diplomats are people somewhere inside.

[Lala]

Ski troops were essential to finnish army. They made possible to move fast from A to B and make some quick, silent and very deadly strikes against the Russian troops.

A Finnish soldier equipped with Suomi SMG, skiis and white "snow-univorm" is a legend, known as "a white death". What my grandpa' told, Russians were afraid to death 'cos of these sudden strikes when they tried to get some sleep.

This would be a fine reason to include ski troops. Maybe a burst to moving in wintertime. That would be nice and very realistic too.