Finland prepared for the Winter War

Everybody here knows that Finland did exceptionaly well in the Winter War, especially if we consider the huge disparity between them and the Soviet Union in every category. My question is, what preparations could Finland make so that the War lasts longer, and perhaps ends on better terms then IOTL?

Perhaps greater interwar investment in domestic heavy industries, allowing them to produce more of various war material, such as shells, ammunition, etc. Is greater budget for the Finnish Armed Forces possible, so that they have more modern artillery, AT/AA guns, trucks, aircraft, in short all the various things that army needs?
 
Everybody here knows that Finland did exceptionaly well in the Winter War, especially if we consider the huge disparity between them and the Soviet Union in every category. My question is, what preparations could Finland make so that the War lasts longer, and perhaps ends on better terms then IOTL?

Perhaps greater interwar investment in domestic heavy industries, allowing them to produce more of various war material, such as shells, ammunition, etc. Is greater budget for the Finnish Armed Forces possible, so that they have more modern artillery, AT/AA guns, trucks, aircraft, in short all the various things that army needs?

Ironically, I'm not sure if it would actually help Finland. They'll never be able to match the CCCP due to the size differential, and if they look like a tougher nut to crack Stalin might not waste time and resources on pointlessly stupid plans to the degree that he did OTL. A proper Soviet campaign, with proper tank-infantry support, supply lines, and consolidation, is something the Finns probably can't respond to even in the best circumstances.
 

Well, I am still assuming that Stalin still decides to invade Finland, and I am trying to even the odds somewhat, not to have Finns capture Leningrad or something as silly as that. Simply having the Finns be a bit better off in 1939 when the war kicks off, with perhaps more modern artillery at their disposal, more ammo, greater amounts of industry to support the army...
 
Well, I am still assuming that Stalin still decides to invade Finland, and I am trying to even the odds somewhat, not to have Finns capture Leningrad or something as silly as that. Simply having the Finns be a bit better off in 1939 when the war kicks off, with perhaps more modern artillery at their disposal, more ammo, greater amounts of industry to support the army...

But if that leads to the Soviets not assuming Finland will fall apart like a wet paper bag, it means that any benefit the Finns gain is countered by better Soviet planning from the get go.
 
IIRC DrakonFin made a decent TL about this

I didn't. You're thinking of CanKiwi's TL. In that story, Finland is much more formidable than IOTL. But then, IMHO, it is not really a plausible one as timelines go.


Well, I am still assuming that Stalin still decides to invade Finland, and I am trying to even the odds somewhat, not to have Finns capture Leningrad or something as silly as that. Simply having the Finns be a bit better off in 1939 when the war kicks off, with perhaps more modern artillery at their disposal, more ammo, greater amounts of industry to support the army...

Finland doing somewhat better might make the Finnish leaders believe they can survive until the promised Anglo-French help arrives in the late spring/early summer 1940. They turn down the Soviet peace offer in March. Stalin decides he needs to flatten the Finns before the Allies arrive on the scene and orders the Red Army to go all in. In the end, the Soviets roll to Helsinki on May Day as the first French troops are preparing to cross from Sweden to Finland. The Allies abandon the plan to intervene in Finland as pointless and work to salvage what they can from the debacle. Namely, an alliance with the Norwegians and Swedes.

We then get a Finnish SSR. Norway and Sweden are in the Allies. The war in Europe ends with a German defeat by mid-1944 at the latest.
 
Last edited:
But if that leads to the Soviets not assuming Finland will fall apart like a wet paper bag, it means that any benefit the Finns gain is countered by better Soviet planning from the get go.

You do have a point, but still how much would they change their plans from OTL? I mean they expected that they would be in Helsinki in a matter of weeks, if not less, and I do not see them changing their plans or troop disposition in a way that would completely nullify all the advantages Finns could possibly gain, at least in the beginning. I mean they were extremely overconfident, and expected they would brush aside Finnish resistance with minimum casualties in a very short time period, and couple more factories, or somewhat larger military budgets may not come into their consideration at all.
 
You do have a point, but still how much would they change their plans from OTL? I mean they expected that they would be in Helsinki in a matter of weeks, if not less, and I do not see them changing their plans or troop disposition in a way that would completely nullify all the advantages Finns could possibly gain, at least in the beginning. I mean they were extremely overconfident, and expected they would brush aside Finnish resistance with minimum casualties in a very short time period, and couple more factories, or somewhat larger military budgets may not come into their consideration at all.

They based their initial plan believing that the Finnish military would crumple even faster than the Polish military (as well as believing there would be a Communist uprising). The second fallacy might still come into play, but not the first, leading to the Soviets deploying overwhelming force in a much more coordinated manner early on. I don't think it would actually cause the Soviets to do better than OTL, but I doubt they'd do much worse...maybe Finland can keep a White Sea port though?
 
In order for Finland to do significantly better the Mannerheim-line (Pääasema) needs to be unpunctured. If the Soviets can not break through with their renewed offensive starting on 1 February 1940, the Finnish position is militarily and politically much stronger which might lead to more favorable peace terms for Finland. This is hard, but not impossible.

This might be achievable even with OTL defense spending, but one would have to "roll sixes" in the 1930's, a period of rapid technological change, practically at a level of a foresight. Artillery munitions instead of bombers, anti-tank guns instead of tanks, locking down the requirements for close-in AT-weapon etc.
 
@Jukra thank you for your answer. My thinking was roughly the same, with a different procurement decisions during the Interwar period.

One thing that would certainly be helpful is modernization and standardization of the artillery, with Finns asking for French help in that regard. French would have a sizeable amount of various artillery weapons availlable, and Finns could really benefit from standardizing on French models, instead of mish-mash they had to make do IOTL. They would also receive some of the French artillery doctrine along with the guns, and mindset of materiel over men could perhaps ensure that there are enough shells acquired and produced from domestic sources, so that Finnish artillery is able to do counter-battery and saturation bombardments more often then IOTL.

Finnish infantry did extremely well in OTL, and I am not really certain what could be done there that would further increase their effectiveness. Their basic infantry weapons were adequate for the task, and while rimmed cartridges are often derided, I really do not think that they should try and change cartridges, that would really eat into their military budget substantially, for little actual gain. Perhaps starting the production of their M39 Mosin variant somewhat earlier would be useful, if only to create a reserve of arms in case they are needed, with older Mosin variants stockpiled in case of war? M31 SMG is a nice weapon, only thing needed there is increasing production as much as possible, since type of combat really favoured the SMG. One thing that their infantry would really benefit from is having a decent LMG availlable in larger numbers. Their Lahti-Saloranta M/26 was a rather complicated weapon, with 188 individual parts, and it seems it was rather difficult to manufacture, so a different weapon may be preferable instead. Czechoslovakian Vz.26 LMG may be a good choice, if they can quickly modify it to use rimmed ammunition, or they could somehow acquire examples of Soviet DP-27 LMG and produce that instead.

You raise a good point with AT weapons, both guns and individual. AT guns are perhaps the easiest, there were numerous light AT guns availlable during Interwar period in Europe, since many of the nations produced their own. Unless I am mistaken I do think Finland did produce Bofors 36mm AT gun under licence, but their domestic only started in 1939, and they had roughly 90 or so of these guns at the beginning of the war, either bought or made domestically. If they make a decision to acquire a licence/start production earlier then OTL, then we could see larger number of rather good AT guns in Finnish hands, then what was the case IOTL.

As for the individual AT weapons, one can assume that Molotov Coctail will make its appereance, as will the various bundled grenades and satchel charges. Have engineers put together a bunker busting satchel charge, and infantry takes notice and adopts it as an AT weapon of sorts. That is the best I think they would have, AT rifles were relatively popular, and Finns did have their own 20mm version, but that would be more or less it for the Winter war, no HEAT or anything like that, just existing weapons, but in greater numbers then IOTL.

Some motorization could perhaps be done, not in the sense of having motorized divisions, but with logistics, medical and other support elements being motorized to a certain degree, so that horses do not have to be taken from civilian economy. It would also reduce the number of people required to take care of the horses, as well as reduce the fodder required. Some of the artillery, especially of the heavier variety could also be motorized, allowing them to become much more mobile then they would be otherwise. Most, if not all of these trucks would have to be imported, since I do not really see Finland getting a motor industry capable of churning out thousands of cars/trucks/tractors needed for their civilian and military needs. Finnish government could subsidize the motor vehicles, so that they subsidize someone to buy a truck, but for a period of years the government has the right to take that vehicle in case of war/emergency, that would at least partialy help.

Thoughts?
 
Wouldn't Sweden be a good source of modern equipment? The Carl Gustav rocket gun was conceived in the 30s iirc.

On a general note, maybe closer economic cooperation with Scandanavia and the Baltic States post independence.
 
Wouldn't Sweden be a good source of modern equipment? The Carl Gustav rocket gun was conceived in the 30s iirc.

On a general note, maybe closer economic cooperation with Scandanavia and the Baltic States post independence.

Yes, Sweden does have a potential to be a decent source of arms and equipment, with firms such as Bofors producing a very decent equipment, easily comparable to the rest of the world. In regards to the recoiless gun, they came about rather late, and while they likely did experiment with them in 30s and during WW2, Carl Gustav RR went into service only in 1947, so I do not think Finns will have those in Winter War.

But that does not mean that Sweden could not be of immense use to Finland, with AT and AA which could be both bought and licenced from Bofors, Landsverk which could provide a variety of vehicles, both military and civilian, and they also had a healthy aeronautics industry, with SAAB providing some rather decent aircraft. And that is before getting into the rest of the Swedish industries, which could provide a lot of various material to the Finns, be it machinery, uniforms, whatever.

As for the closer economic cooperation between Scandinavian countries, that is something that Finland would benefit from, but I do not exactly know what shape that economic cooperation might take.
 
@Jukra thank you for your answer. My thinking was roughly the same, with a different procurement decisions during the Interwar period.

One thing that would certainly be helpful is modernization and standardization of the artillery, with Finns asking for French help in that regard. French would have a sizeable amount of various artillery weapons availlable, and Finns could really benefit from standardizing on French models, instead of mish-mash they had to make do IOTL. They would also receive some of the French artillery doctrine along with the guns, and mindset of materiel over men could perhaps ensure that there are enough shells acquired and produced from domestic sources, so that Finnish artillery is able to do counter-battery and saturation bombardments more often then IOTL.

Finnish artillery was doctrinally very well developed, it was the lack of munitions which was the worst problem which could be expected to be cured, if savings could be made from some other items. Blenheim bombers would be my candidate as they were not a critical asset. To simplify a bit, basically, Finnish Army was rather well equipped to fight a war against Soviet Union lasting for one month. This was a reasonable amount of time which could be expected from a minor nation fighting a larger nation.

Finnish infantry did extremely well in OTL, and I am not really certain what could be done there that would further increase their effectiveness.

Sure, Lahti LMG was adequate if not a great weapon, but outside of rolling sixes and developing a GPMG I don't think a replacement would have a significant effect upon firepower. As for infantry weapons, slightly earlier introduction of 120mm mortars would have had an impact.

You raise a good point with AT weapons, both guns and individual. AT guns are perhaps the easiest, there were numerous light AT guns availlable during Interwar period in Europe, since many of the nations produced their own. Unless I am mistaken I do think Finland did produce Bofors 36mm AT gun under licence, but their domestic only started in 1939, and they had roughly 90 or so of these guns at the beginning of the war, either bought or made domestically. If they make a decision to acquire a licence/start production earlier then OTL, then we could see larger number of rather good AT guns in Finnish hands, then what was the case IOTL.

As for the individual AT weapons, one can assume that Molotov Coctail will make its appereance, as will the various bundled grenades and satchel charges. Have engineers put together a bunker busting satchel charge, and infantry takes notice and adopts it as an AT weapon of sorts. That is the best I think they would have, AT rifles were relatively popular, and Finns did have their own 20mm version, but that would be more or less it for the Winter war, no HEAT or anything like that, just existing weapons, but in greater numbers then IOTL

Bofors 37mm AT-gun was a perfectly adequate weapon, although in hindsight it could have been bought earlier. My candidate would be to ditch purchase of Vickers 6ton tanks and use the money for AT-guns instead. Historically one could have bought roughly 7-10 AT-guns for a price of single tank, so maybe roughly 230-330 AT-guns could have been bought instead. Furthermore, these could have been made domestically saving foreign exchange funds. Historically Finnish Army had 98 Bofors guns at the start of the conflict and some 140 at the end of the war, so some 230-330 would have given Finnish Army much more robust AT-capability as the 37mm AT-gun was the real tank killer of the war.

Finnish Army light AT-weapon was hampered by long development process as there was dispute over which caliber weapon should be purchased. There's possibility, though, that an earlier purchase decision would have led into procurement of ineffective weapons.

Furthermore, more AT-weapons would have meant more economical use of forces in "motti" (encirclement) battles north of Lake Ladoga, as the motti's could have been reduced in more rapid fashion instead of having to practically wait them to starve or to eliminate tanks and strongpoints with costly close assaults with satchel charges, Molotov coctails etc.

The problem is though, that Finnish defence "rolled sixes" in many areas in OTL, whether infantry tactics in forests, winter tactics, signals intelligence, artillery doctrine, fighter tactics etc. that even OTL success level would be considered to be ASB. And while it's easy to point out not optimal purchases in context of OTL, it's much more difficult to point out them realistically from the context of the time decision was made, without the foresight of the war to come. Twin engine fast bombers were en vogue in late 1930's, some 33 tanks seemed to be rather reasonable purchase etc. Restructuring these purchases could result only in a context of a major reshuffle of defense priorities.

If you're interested in various weapons of the Finnish Army, I would suggest the website https://www.jaegerplatoon.net/ which offers rather good basic material in English.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Top