Exel Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 Now now, it's extremely important not to mix Winter War and Continuation War. In Winter War Finland had only a small air force, and large number of the operational fighters the FAF possessed were obsolete. Before Continuation War most of Finnish fighters were from Allied nations (Gladiator, Morane, Brewster) and some from Italy (G.50), but Finland never received fighters from Germany before the second war with Soviet Union had started. Even then Hitler was reluctant at giving Finland equipment - Germany never gave state-of-the-art equipment to its allies - and Bf109s were received only after hard bargaining. The same applies to StuG assault guns and the German anti-tank weapons. About the troop quantity and casualty figures: In Winter War Finland mobilized 337,000 men. Soviet Union started the war with 520,000 men and at its peak the Soviet Union had over 1 million soldiers in the Finnish front. The casualties were (quite accurately for Finland) 26,700 dead and 44,000 wounded, while Soviet Union lost nearly 300,000 men as either dead, wounded or missing. In Continuation War the Finnish Defence Forces had 475,000 men in total. In 1941 they were faced with some 300,000 Soviet soldiers. In 1944 the Soviet manpower in the Finnish front was a little over 600,000 men. Finland lost 65,000 as KIA and 142,000 as WIA. Soviet losses were at least four times as big (alone in Tali-Ihantala the Soviets lost over 60,000 men). I don't know how this discussion led to this (and discussion about some Central European cities, Yugoslavian army sizes, etc.) as the original issue was simply about Finland having an ahistorical border when it declares war on Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Hehe, sorry some of us folk are notorious for off the topic discussion. Also relating, is Finland as key as some of the other Axis Minor alterations on the Map? Or, in this case the Land Connection between USA and Canada... Is it worth the effort to make an alteration of the Isthmus when Moldavia, part of Greece was ceded to Minors as well as that Leningrad doesn't have a proper setup for resupply over a lake to make taking the city a bit more difficult? Why should Finland be at half strength to begin with when you conquor Sweden? Why should Scandanavia have a ferry connection to Denmark? When Canada doesn't, and Ireland does to the UK? Saying what's vital. Most Strategic. I'd vote for USA-Canada connection first... Before Finland was altered. A port for Portugal so that Iberia isn't an Allied nightmare...Connection between Sweden-Finland then Finland with the Winter War inclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 I'd want to see the USA-Canada connection too. But making the Finnish border historical doesn't require any additional map changes, unlike some of the other proposed changes, so I figure it'd be easier (and more acceptable) to do at this point. It's only a question of hex ownership. However I do not see any reason to make an artificial land connection between Sweden and Finland. Unless the map would be expanded to the north, of course (I don't understand why it was cut off so south). But that'd be wishful thinking. Germany practically dominated the Baltic Sea, ie. the Allies (including Soviet Union) couldn't interfere with its shipments much. I bet that's why there's a ferry connection between Germany and Finland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Liam: XWormWood: My resources are websources from two seperate sites. Also via a very good novel I do not have the name of I heard a very interesting account of actually how the PAF had destroyed more German fighters than vis versa the first day... which began my intrigueing research Hard to believe that the Polish Air Force was actually very well trained.. their mainline fighter was just not a comparison with the 109s. They accounted for 13% of BOB German Aerial losses at the cost off 33 lives so says the latter link!!! Jesus http://www.electricscotland.com/history/ww2/ww2-3.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/polcamp.htm In own a couple of books about WW2, but only 2 of them have some numbers about the poland campaign. Both with max. 282 lost german planes (Cajus Bekker / Janusz Piekaliewicz). Unfortunatly most of my Books doesn't tell any numbers about this war (G. L. Weinberg, Raymond Cartier p.e.). [ October 07, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Exel: Germany practically dominated the Baltic Sea, ie. the Allies (including Soviet Union) couldn't interfere with its shipments much. I bet that's why there's a ferry connection between Germany and Finland. Finland?!? Or Denmark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Oopsies Meant Denmark link to Sweden.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 As far as resources, that's 3 conflicting reports I've heard so far. Precise losses may never be obtained... We really could use a WW2 Fall Weiss Fanatic I wouldn't put it past the Germans losses being higher than a few hundred. A lot of casualties may have been ditched, damaged or none combatant aircraft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts