The Winter War

[Raven25]

Originally posted by Lars:

The example you are giving is of the more northern portion of Finland and what you're talking about is tactical mobility, which wouldn't show up at this scale.

I doubt the Finnish army of the time could have moved more than two SC hexes into Russia and kept their troops supplied.

Excepting the Leningrad area of course, where there is at least a road/rail network. [/QB]

What you stated is an opinion. I stated factual history of the Winter War. Finns were well supplied [during] the war. Finland had no intention of invading Russia, as they knew a prolonged war would lead to a defeat for them. The Finns held their border, and while they held they were supplied. After the cease fire there weren't as many donations by citizens, so supplies thinned out. But if conflict started again than they would've been resupplied.

In Reply To Fubarno.

The Finns weren't just diehards, they were downright crazy. The Finns didn't have anti-tank weapons so they'd run around tanks until a gunner would come out from the top. They'd jump on top of the tank, kill the gunner, and throw a molotov cocktail into the tank (burning crew and equipment). The Finns were very tough (most men fighting had been loggers from the backwoods), and they had an esprit that could be compared to that of the Marines.

[Liam]

Well, most become fanatical when you invade their Nation. The Russians payed in the Tens of Millions to Germany. The Germans themselves lost relatively a larg number for a Westernized Nation in WW2. In Germany and Russia during their Dark days, women and young boys served. I think in Finland the same sort of theory applies, they were not going to sit and stand for Russian aggression. Especially become like the Poles/Baltics

Had Finnish Forces been supplied by Germany what is the limits on their range?

Originally posted by Raven25:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

The example you are giving is of the more northern portion of Finland and what you're talking about is tactical mobility, which wouldn't show up at this scale.

I doubt the Finnish army of the time could have moved more than two SC hexes into Russia and kept their troops supplied.

Excepting the Leningrad area of course, where there is at least a road/rail network.

What you stated is an opinion. I stated factual history of the Winter War. Finns were well supplied [during] the war. Finland had no intention of invading Russia, as they knew a prolonged war would lead to a defeat for them. The Finns held their border, and while they held they were supplied. After the cease fire there weren't as many donations by citizens, so supplies thinned out. But if conflict started again than they would've been resupplied.

In Reply To Fubarno.

The Finns weren't just diehards, they were downright crazy. The Finns didn't have anti-tank weapons so they'd run around tanks until a gunner would come out from the top. They'd jump on top of the tank, kill the gunner, and throw a molotov cocktail into the tank (burning crew and equipment). The Finns were very tough (most men fighting had been loggers from the backwoods), and they had an esprit that could be compared to that of the Marines. [/QB]</font>

[Fubarno]

Liam brings up a point that isn't really reflected in the game and that is, the fanatacism of troops in defence of their homeland against an invader.

The Russians do exert a scorched earth and have partisans, as do the Yugoslavians. I think I read that the Germans in SC2 will have a scorched earth. But, what about some bonus to defence of the homeland?

Surely the British would have been tenacious in defending against a Sea Lion, more so then in some other theater. The Germans Became quite fanatical in the last year of the war in fear of what the advancing Russians would do in retaliation against the Fatherland. The Russians had the same motivation once stories of German attrocities were spread about, and the NKVD carried out the orders of Stalin that prevented retreat or surrender on pain of death.

I am reminded of the old days playing Squad Leader and rolling snake eyes with my Russians on a morale check. The troops would go berserk and charge the nearest axis troops to enter into close combat. The squad would usually get mowed down, but it was always greeted with a sense of dread by the Axis player and excitement by the Russian player. Only death would eliminate this unit.

Yes I know the scales are at opposite ends of the spectrum, squads versus armies and corps, but shouldn't the fanatacism of defending ones homeland be reflected? It could be a random event like in Panzer general, where a defender in his homeland could put up a 'rugged defence'. This could be offset by the experience of the attacker. Just some thoughts...

[Lars]

Originally posted by Raven25:

What you stated is an opinion. I stated factual history of the Winter War. Finns were well supplied [during] the war.

LOL, the Finns were well supplied. What histories are you reading?

The ammunition situation of the Finnish army was indeed grim in almost all categories, with the exception of rifle ammunition. The delaying groups had with them and in their stores 14 fire rations for small arms.

To the whole field army, an average of 5 - 6 fire rations (to small arms) had been reserved. To the relatively good ammunition situation, of the rifle caliber weapons, the number of hand grenades was very low (only 175 000) , as was the number of 37 mm AT-gun shells (under 300 per gun) , and the number of mortar shells (only 30 % of the required, ~280 per tube) .

The field artillery had in magazines and with the troops an average of 5 - 7 fire rations (depending on type) .

The bad ammunition situation led to strict orders to spare the artillery and AT-gun shells to serious attacks only, thereby conserving ammo to be concentrated on the Isthmus front, where they still tended to run out.

The Finns were short on almost everything.

Finland had no intention of invading Russia, as they knew a prolonged war would lead to a defeat for them. The Finns held their border, and while they held they were supplied. After the cease fire there weren't as many donations by citizens, so supplies thinned out. But if conflict started again than they would've been resupplied.

Funny, I thought they were about to crack and Tanner signed a hasty peace treaty before they were overwhelmed.

The report was grim indeed. The situation at the front was near catastrophic. The commander of the II Corps, Lt.Gen. Öhquist, stated that the front could maybe hold for a week, but no more. The Finnish suffered average daily losses of nearly 1,000 men, and especially the officer losses were alarming. The only conclusion was, that any delays in the peace negotiations would result only in worse conditions and harder demands.

During March 10th and 11th, Mannerheim phoned Tanner many times trying to speed up the negotiations. "Viipuri is going to fall in a few days..." was his view of the situation.

You seem to have the same pipe dreams the Finnish Cabinet had of receiving help from the Brits and French. They were never going to get any men or supplies in time to do any good.

[Raven25]

Finns may not have had as much supplies as the Russians, but they did have enough. If they have enough, they are well supplied.

It was the Russians that were rushing for peace negotiations. They were losing too many men that they needed for the inevitable war with Germany.

I already stated that the Finns didn't have heavy weapons, but they devised new tactics to overcome tanks.

Don't ever forget that the Finns were able to inflict much higher casualties on the Russians than they recieved.

When I say "held their border" I mean the border that was agreed in the peace treaty. Once troops were on the lines Russia had a very very difficult time to gain land, in fact they lost land. That is why the Russians were so quick to sign a peace treaty. They would rather come out with a little more land than a little less than before.

The Finns were well enough supplied with food that they were actually able to send Russian POWs accross the border with rations of food. The Russians had very little food, and the POWs didn't want to cross the border as they knew they'd either get shot for surrendering or starve with the lack of food.

Where are you reading your history? A Russian history book?

[Lars]

"A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940" by William Trotter.

Raven25, I suggest you pick up a copy as you seem to have bought into the myth of the UberFinn and are sadly misinformed on the subject.

[ham]

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.

The Finns were well enough supplied with food that they were actually able to send Russian POWs accross the border with rations of food. The Russians had very little food, and the POWs didn't want to cross the border as they knew they'd either get shot for surrendering or starve with the lack of food.

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 the Russians that were rushing for peace negotiations. They were losing too many men that they needed for the inevitable war with Germany

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.

When I say "held their border" I mean the border that was agreed in the peace treaty. Once troops were on the lines Russia had a very very difficult time to gain land, in fact they lost land. That is why the Russians were so quick to sign a peace treaty. They would rather come out with a little more land than a little less than before.

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.

[Lars]

Originally posted by ham:

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.

ham, can you recommend a good English text on the Continuation War? Perhaps a Finnish translation?

I've never been able to find a really good one that didn't deal with it in a wholly ancillary manner.

[Raven25]

Lars, I'm getting my information from Storm Over the Land, and also a documentary that was on TV.

[Lars]

Ah, no wonder. "Storm Over the Land: A Novel About War"

Should have been a clue in there for you.

Try "The Unknown Soldier" by Väinö Linna for another good novel.

[ham]

Originally posted by Lars:

ham, can you recommend a good English text on the Continuation War? Perhaps a Finnish translation?

I've never been able to find a really good one that didn't deal with it in a wholly ancillary manner.

No, sorry. Haven't encountered one.

Try "The Unknown Soldier" by Väinö Linna for another good novel.

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.

[Lars]

Well, not being able to read Finnish, I just had to take what I could get.

[Exel]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if some of this has been brought up already.

The Winter War should definitely be in. If not otherwise, then at least as an event that moves the Finnish-Soviet border. There's no point that Finland starts Continuation War with its 1939 borders.

That said, I think the event should be fully simulated. The war was not only valuable experience for the Soviets - without the lessons learned in Winter War their performance against the Germans later on would have been even worse - but it also made Hitler underestimate the Red Army as well as thinking of the Finns as potential allies, both leading him to ignore the M-R Pact and taking a more aggressive stance against Soviet Union earlier than he himself had thought before. Not only that, but the Winter War also almost led to a war between the Allies and the Soviet Union - or it might have had the war been prolonged longer. There could also be an option for diplomatic outcome - Finland accepting Stalin's terms to avoid war. In which case the political situation between the majors as well changes somewhat from the historical one. The latter of course depends a lot of the specifics of the diplo engine.

[Roosevelt45]

Yes, it has been said before.

except for the allies-USSR war part, which I think is very unlikely because the UK would have never declared war to Russia knowing that Germany was war-ready.

At the most there would have been a conflict in Finland but certainly not a full-scale war.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Exel:

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if some of this has been brought up already.

The Winter War should definitely be in. If not otherwise, then at least as an event that moves the Finnish-Soviet border. There's no point that Finland starts Continuation War with its 1939 borders.

That said, I think the event should be fully simulated. The war was not only valuable experience for the Soviets - without the lessons learned in Winter War their performance against the Germans later on would have been even worse - but it also made Hitler underestimate the Red Army as well as thinking of the Finns as potential allies, both leading him to ignore the M-R Pact and taking a more aggressive stance against Soviet Union earlier than he himself had thought before. Not only that, but the Winter War also almost led to a war between the Allies and the Soviet Union - or it might have had the war been prolonged longer. There could also be an option for diplomatic outcome - Finland accepting Stalin's terms to avoid war. In which case the political situation between the majors as well changes somewhat from the historical one. The latter of course depends a lot of the specifics of the diplo engine.

I don't know how you would do it without completely destroying Fog of War for both players.

As the German and Russian players both know what's coming next (Barbarossa) they will ignore a pointless drain on resources and prepare for it.

So why bother with a battle that in the greater scheme of things was pretty much a draw?

[With Clusters]

Make the border area worth some MPPs for the Russians. Subtract any lost Finnish units from that country's "allowable builds" once it joins up again in the Continuation War. Most likely outcome: Russia declares war, but the Axis player declines to defend it. Result: Russian player gets the historically captured area w/ little interuption to game flow. But what if the Axis player decides to resist fully w/ the Finns, etc.....

[Lars]

Actually, I think the Russian Player will just throw everything available and steamroll Finland, knocking it out of the game. How you going to make them stop?

But now you've also activated the Russian Player early and he really has time to start investing in tech and building up his forces. And if he has any brains he'll invade Germany as soon as possible.

I don't know, I think if you want to refight the Winter War, go get the old SPI game. It's going to be a bit hard to fit into SC2.

[With Clusters]

Crap, as usual, I got the idea from 3R (A3R in this case), but I forgot how it was dealt with. I believe the Russians could only occupy the border area if the Finns didn't fight for it (in game terms, meaning putting risking 'counters'). I know it sounds complicated, but A3R was an even more "strategic" game than SC, w/ a smaller map, and less units available. Perhaps Pzrgndr, Desert Dave, or some other 3R fan with a better memory can comment on how A3R handled the Winter War? But if I recall, Pzrgndr (am I getting that right, I hope?) stated that the Winter War will definitely be abstracted in SC2 anyway, so the debate might be moot.

Regarding Russian activation, I was under the impression that all major powers were "active" from the get-go, but perhaps not w/ full access to MPPs. So I don't think a pre-Barbarossa war involving Russia and a minor would put the Soviets at full war readiness. Is that correct?

[Lars]

I was thinking of the way it was handled in SC1, so you might be right.

But I think Hubert is going to have to put in some kind of trigger to prevent Russia from declaring war on day 1, otherwise this is going to be a very short game.

[Exel]

You guys are apparently neglecting history. Why would USSR player attack Finland? Well, why did they attack historically? Soviet Union would easily steamroll Finland? They didn't irl...

Had USSR not attacked Finland in 1939 the Red Army would have been in a piss-poor shape in 1941, and Barbarossa probably would have succeeded. And Finland wasn't steamrolled for two reasons: the Red Army was in piss-poor shape and the Finns had great morale. Unfortunately Hubert will neglect the effects of morale and not simulate it in the game, but we could always play around with readiness. Give the Soviets a low initial readiness that will only go up after Winter War has been fought. That way the Soviets have a good reason to attack Finland and the Finns have a chance to survive. Germany on the other hand normally wont want to intervene since it would probably lose an early war with USSR.

As for the potential Allies-USSR war, you are correct in that the Allies would never have declared war on the Soviets. However, they were willing to send troops to the frontlines and that probably would have resulted in Soviet dow on the Allies. Which, in Churchill's mind, would have been acceptable (remember that at that point the Germans hadn't yet beaten the crap out of the Allies and Churchill felt strong).

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I thought he said there was going to be morale in the game.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Roosevelt45(the 2nd):

I thought he said there was going to be morale in the game.

Yes, as some sub modifier, but not really as a decisive factor like experience. Which practically is neglecting morale altogether.