Marching An Army Across Frozen Seas

The English Channel did PROBABLY froze in 1683-1684 winter.
See
H. H. Lamb, "The Climate of Europe: Past, Present and Future", page 46

Didn't the Bosphorus freeze once as well, around that time? (which given its Mediterranean location, is even crazier)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1809... the Russians invaded Sweden over the ice from

So, ice has the ability to support a lot of weight if it gets thick enough. There's plenty of northern lakes that see tractor-trailors drive along them all the time. I'm wondering what bodies of water can manage this, and which can't. For instance sometimes the Baltic freezes completely, could Germany march an army into Sweden during one of those winters?

1809... the Russians invaded Sweden over the ice from Finland, using the Aland Islands as a stop along the way. Bagration and Barclay de Tollay.

Best,
 
So would the ice around Denmark's islands be more stable (being smaller) or less stable (being saltier)?

Given that it is a lot more south, and the ice is probably thinner (unless it really is a monster winter), and the fact that there is likely at least some shipping through the Danish straits during the winter, for which shipping lanes would have to be opened with (quite possibly Swedish) icebreakers, I'd say the ice would be less stable here than anywhere around the Finnish coasts.


1809... the Russians invaded Sweden over the ice from Finland, using the Aland Islands as a stop along the way. Bagration and Barclay de Tollay.

Best,

With quite limited units, though. Bagration's forces that took Åland included 17 000 men and 22 cannons, and AFAIK only a part of the cossack forces advanced as far as Grisslehamn to harry the withdrawing Swedish troops and then quickly returned to Åland. With the sources at my disposal I can't say if they even took any artillery along with them. De Tolly had 3700 men and 6 cannons in the infantry and cossack units that advanced to Umeå. I think that neither Russian force travelled continuously on ice for longer than 30-40 km. In both cases, they were on ice for two to four days at a time. And it was a very cold winter as well. When Shuvalov's troops attacked from Tornio towards Kalix at roughly the same time, his forces apparently had to brave temperatures of -35 degrees Celsius. It is quite possible that even on the level of Åland they had -20.

I think these forces, with logistics based on horses and horse- and man-drawn sleighs, had a much smaller and lighter footprint, so to speak, than any sizable WWI-era (or later) military force would have. This means that they would have more problems in crossing the ice without breaking it and they would necessarily have problems with supply. In the Finnish War, one significant reason the Russians could not capitalize on their incursions into Sweden was that the troops could not be properly supplied for a further advance. I'd say this problem would be even more pronounced with a more modern military.
 
Last edited:
The Russians crossed the Gulf of Finland this way in the Winter War. In fact, if the Finns were able to hold out a few more weeks (which they couldn't without earlier PODs such as losing their only port in the Arctic Ocean), the ice would have melted and the Russians would have been cut off and had to surrender.

The following contains an example: https://books.google.com/books?id=w...age&q=soviets crossed gulf of finland&f=false

Another source: https://books.google.com/books?id=k...age&q=soviets crossed gulf of finland&f=false

Here's a news article that speaks of the Finns destroying 30 tanks in their drive across the ice: https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=uB8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4823,4291878&hl=en

This article says the March 7th attack succeeded: http://world-war-2.wikia.com/wiki/Winter_War
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure; not exactly a German field army, but probably

Given that it is a lot more south, and the ice is probably thinner (unless it really is a monster winter), and the fact that there is likely at least some shipping through the Danish straits during the winter, for which shipping lanes would have to be opened with (quite possibly Swedish) icebreakers, I'd say the ice would be less stable here than anywhere around the Finnish coasts.




With quite limited units, though. Bagration's forces that took Åland included 17 000 men and 22 cannons, and AFAIK only a part of the cossack forces advanced as far as Grisslehamn to harry the withdrawing Swedish troops and then quickly returned to Åland. With the sources at my disposal I can't say if they even took any artillery along with them. De Tolly had 3700 men and 6 cannons in the infantry and cossack units that advanced to Umeå. I think that neither Russian force travelled continuously on ice for longer than 30-40 km. In both cases, they were on ice for two to four days at a time. And it was a very cold winter as well. When Shuvalov's troops attacked from Tornio towards Kalix at roughly the same time, his forces apparently had to brave temperatures of -35 degrees Celsius. It is quite possible that even on the level of Åland they had -20.

I think these forces, with logistics based on horses and horse- and man-drawn sleighs, had a much smaller and lighter footprint, so to speak, than any sizable WWI-era (or later) military force would have. This means that they would have more problems in crossing the ice without breaking it and they would necessarily have problems with supply. In the Finnish War, one significant reason the Russians could not capitalize on their incursions into Sweden was that the troops could not be properly supplied for a further advance. I'd say this problem would be even more pronounced with a more modern military.

Sure; not the equivalent of a German field army in the 20th Century, but about the same as a reinforced division, but with much less artillery.

Pretty impressive operation, however, for 1808; one would expect a specially trained and equipped force could have quite an impact in the right theater.

Best,
 
Marching across ice is possible in much of Canada and a few of the Northern United States.
Many Canadian rivers and parts of the Great Lakes frozen solid during late winter. I have skated and skied on the Rideau River (Ottawa) during January and February and partway into March. Ice on the Rideau River starts to melt around Easter.
But City of Ottawa crews have to blast Rideau River ice to prevent jams and flooding ... a problem on many northwards flowing rivers.

Similarly, Lachine Rapids (St. Lawrence River near Montreal) freeze over in February. Until the introduction of steam-powered ice-breakers (RCN MacLean launched in 1930) the port of Montreal was ice-bound until well into the spring.

Fortunately, North America never had the population density to support winter campaigning. Any soldier who ventured out in -30 degree weather quickly lost interest in the enemy!
 
The Russians crossed the Gulf of Finland this way in the Winter War. In fact, if the Finns were able to hold out a few more weeks (which they couldn't without earlier PODs such as losing their only port in the Arctic Ocean), the ice would have melted and the Russians would have been cut off and had to surrender.[/url]

It wasn't really the Gulf of Finland, though, but merely the Gulf of Viipuri. I pointed this out above. The idea was to go around the defences of the Viipuri area from the south by establishing bridgeheads on the Western shore of the gulf in a hope the Finns would be surprised by such attacks. This means that the Soviet troops crossed, at best, at most 10 km on ice at a time. Going across the actual Gulf of Finland would be 50 km or more.

The winter during the Winter War was very cold, which indeed was one of the reasons for the poor Soviet showing anyway. The ice on the Gulf of Viipuri was nearly one meter thick. I think you very rarely get such thick, strong and stable ice across any bigger body of water. Let me also add that the attack was possible because the Finns had only limited troops in the area and lacked heavy weapons and the artillery they had had limited ammunition. With a strong, more prepared, heavily armed defence the attack would not have succeeded even to the extent it did IOTL.
 
It wasn't really the Gulf of Finland, though, but merely the Gulf of Viipuri. I pointed this out above. The idea was to go around the defences of the Viipuri area from the south by establishing bridgeheads on the Western shore of the gulf in a hope the Finns would be surprised by such attacks. This means that the Soviet troops crossed, at best, at most 10 km on ice at a time. Going across the actual Gulf of Finland would be 50 km or more.

The winter during the Winter War was very cold, which indeed was one of the reasons for the poor Soviet showing anyway. The ice on the Gulf of Viipuri was nearly one meter thick. I think you very rarely get such thick, strong and stable ice across any bigger body of water. Let me also add that the attack was possible because the Finns had only limited troops in the area and lacked heavy weapons and the artillery they had had limited ammunition. With a strong, more prepared, heavily armed defence the attack would not have succeeded even to the extent it did IOTL.

Sill happened.
 
It wasn't really the Gulf of Finland, though, but merely the Gulf of Viipuri. I pointed this out above. The idea was to go around the defences of the Viipuri area from the south by establishing bridgeheads on the Western shore of the gulf in a hope the Finns would be surprised by such attacks. This means that the Soviet troops crossed, at best, at most 10 km on ice at a time. Going across the actual Gulf of Finland would be 50 km or more.

The winter during the Winter War was very cold, which indeed was one of the reasons for the poor Soviet showing anyway. The ice on the Gulf of Viipuri was nearly one meter thick. I think you very rarely get such thick, strong and stable ice across any bigger body of water. Let me also add that the attack was possible because the Finns had only limited troops in the area and lacked heavy weapons and the artillery they had had limited ammunition. With a strong, more prepared, heavily armed defence the attack would not have succeeded even to the extent it did IOTL.

Good thing for me the defenders in my plan are rather lacking in troops and heavy weapons.
 
Sure; not the equivalent of a German field army in the 20th Century, but about the same as a reinforced division, but with much less artillery.

Well, the whole force in the Ålands might have been over 17,000, but I'd hazard a guess that the part of it that finally went as far as the shores of Sweden proper did not number more than 6000 or, say, the similar numbers that crossed the ice at Umeå. This is conjecture on my part, as I don't have sources for the exact numbers, but as supply was an issue, I think sending anything like the whole force across from Åland would have been too much of a gamble. Now, I am sure someone on the forum has more information about the attack than I do, and coud correct me if I am wrong.

EDIT: I in fact found a reference that Bagration ordered his subordinate, general Kulnev, "to occupy Grisslehamn with 400 cossacks" (here, page 183). We might read this to mean that only a small detachment of Bagration's troops in fact went all the way to Sweden while most stayed in the Åland area.


Pretty impressive operation, however, for 1808; one would expect a specially trained and equipped force could have quite an impact in the right theater.

Best,

I do agree here, the operation and its execution was quite impressive. It does show that one could do such an attack with limited forces even in the early 19th century, but it also points towards the fact that such an attack would not work as a large scale invasion but could only fulfill limited objectives.


Sill happened.

Yes, in 1940 the Red Army could successfully attack with infantry and light armor across at most 10 km of very strong ice on a body of water of limited size during a very cold winter above the 60th parallel north. But it would be quite different to do such a large-scale attack over an actual sea area (like the Gulf of Finland) and especially anywhere to the south of the northern Baltic Sea.

One other successful attack across the ice during WWII was the Finnish operation to retake the island of Suursaari (Gogland), 40 km from the Finnish mainland, in March 1942. For that battle, 3500 Finnish troops were brought by trucks and horses across the ice to about 10-20 km from the island during the night to achieve a surprise. The air temperature was around -5. The over 700 horses used were camouflaged with white sheets and most of the soldiers' gear was painted white. The last five kilometers were advanced on skis. The island was attacked from all sides to avoid any breakouts. The Finns successfully took over the island from the Soviet garrison of about 500 men. The Finns had artillery (20 guns) and air support while the Soviet defenders lacked artillery.

Here, again, we have a limited force successfully carrying out an operation across the ice to achieve a limited objective. During a very cold winter in the northern Baltic Sea. In such conditions and with light troops, it is doable.

Incidentally, after the war the Finnish Defence Forces put some effort into developing a particular type of mines that would be used to break sea or lake ice to stop the enemy (read: the Soviets) from doing a similar kind of attack in the future. I think that, in a pinch, a post-WWI military might well rig airplane-dropped naval mines or, say, depth charges for the very same purpose.


Good thing for me the defenders in my plan are rather lacking in troops and heavy weapons.

Great, now you only have to address the several other problems with the idea.;)
 
Last edited:
Great, now you only have to address the several other problems with the idea.;)

I'll be scaling it back a bit, but it sounds like an assault of some sort around the Danish straights could work. Not an Overlord or Barbarossa, but still something of military value.
 
I'll be scaling it back a bit, but it sounds like an assault of some sort around the Danish straights could work. Not an Overlord or Barbarossa, but still something of military value.

Well, it could be planned as an operation of several, say 3-5 individual landings by at most brigade-sized units. If this is the Danish straits, most likely at least one of the units would not reach its destination due to weak ice or open water anyway and would have to turn back. Like with Suursaari, the element of surprise would also be critical.

But let us assume one or several landings against underdefended coastal locations are achieved. Then of course if the attackers, using horses and light vehicles on the ice, could establish any bridgeheads or capture islands, say, they would have ammunition and supplies for only a few days initially and would have to be supplied over the ice or by air. If the ice starts to break or melt, there would be a period of time they could only by supplied by air or, say, with hydrocopters or hovercraft, thought this would be too advanced for the period you are considering. You would have, say, 3000 - 12 000 lightly armed men, with limited supplies, in several individual pockets on the coast - then what? Also take into account unforeseen factors, like an extended snowstorm or a period of bitter cold - if this is a very cold winter, both options are likely. What would the attackers use for shelter?

The problem, as I see it, is not the initial operations, if they are done right and with good enough planning (though I suspect the Germans would not have the experience of what is needed/prudent in winter conditions like the Russians, Finns or Swedes would have and would thus run a huge risk of failure) - the problem would be follow-up. As long as the sea is frozen solid, or during the "broken season", both supplying the conquered bridgeheads and moving in more troops to take advantage of the initial success would be very difficult. The Swedish could bring more troops more quickly to the area overland, and if the ice is strong enough for the Germans, so it is for the Swedish to launch counter-operations to encircle the bridgehead(s) also from the side of the sea. So what you need to think about is how to avoid the Swedish to snuff out the attack through what amounts to necessarily more easy logistics for taking anything of significance to the area being contested.
 
Canada invented the ultimate tracked vehicle.

Ahem.
http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/11/the_invention_o.html

Carl Eliason of Wisconsin

eliason_snowmobile.jpg
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure - de Tollay's force was larger, however;

Well, the whole force in the Ålands might have been over 17,000, but I'd hazard a guess that the part of it that finally went as far as the shores of Sweden proper did not number more than 6000 or, say, the similar numbers that crossed the ice at Umeå. This is conjecture on my part, as I don't have sources for the exact numbers, but as supply was an issue, I think sending anything like the whole force across from Åland would have been too much of a gamble. Now, I am sure someone on the forum has more information about the attack than I do, and coud correct me if I am wrong.

EDIT: I in fact found a reference that Bagration ordered his subordinate, general Kulnev, "to occupy Grisslehamn with 400 cossacks" (here, page 183). We might read this to mean that only a small detachment of Bagration's troops in fact went all the way to Sweden while most stayed in the Åland area.

I do agree here, the operation and its execution was quite impressive. It does show that one could do such an attack with limited forces even in the early 19th century, but it also points towards the fact that such an attack would not work as a large scale invasion but could only fulfill limited objectives.

Sure - de Tollay's force was larger, however; they crossed separately and took and held Umea for a period of time. Distances were not as great as to the Alands, but still - interesting operation.

Some sort of special force would be interesting; "ice marines" or what have you.

Best,
 
Crossing rivers and lakes is 'easy' in e.g. Canada.

Fresh water freezes at 32F/0C.

Seawater freezes at a lower temperature, and is more prone to 'rotten ice' (i.e. as the salt water freezes, it concentrates the salt in pockets, which makes the ice weaker).

I'd think that you'd need weeks of ~0F/-20C weather to freeze sea water thick enough to take an army - especially a mechanized one.

So. Parts of the Baltic in a cold winter? As pointed out, that's OTL.

The English Channel? Ha, ha, ha. Not unless you have a new ice age.

The Bosporus? give me a break.
 
Top