Wall of Steel - A Finnish AAA timeline 1920-

Nice work, changes are already happening, and it will be very interesting to see just how different Finnish military is in 1939, when compared to the OTL.

In regards to the last chapter, I do wonder will their use of Light AA as AT weapons perhaps make them consider using heavier AA guns (3 inch ones) as AT weapons as well? They would be well suited for the task, due to their high muzzle velocity and flat trajectories, and developing a suitable AP projectile should not be out of Finns reach. Of course, ideally guns used in such a manner will need a suitable, purpose made AT mount, but perhaps they will have learned their lesson with Madsen 20mm, and make a dedicated AA and AT mount both. If a potential of using a 3 inch gun as an AT piece is recognized early enough, we could possibly see Finland enter the Winter War with some of the best AT guns in the world, though I am not really certain about what numbers we may be talking about.

This is still in late 1920's, Vickers Medium Mark II and Vickers Independent basically represent pinnacle of development, and Finnish military believes tank threat to be rather low - as they did believe until very late in 1930's despite having basically same tanks Soviets were using, Vickers 6 ton and Carden-Lloyd, for trials. But as for future, who knows yet?

Another problem, which has been mentioned already in this TL is the problem of mobility that Superheavy, and to a lesser degree, Heavy AA guns have. Even if these weapons do not need to be moved about constantly, some work could be done in regards to that, by procuring dedicated artillery tractors, either wheeled, Half or fully Tracked. These same vehicles could pull double duty as Heavy Industrial/Commercial vehicles, seeing use in both Forrestry and Mining. Same problem will have to be adressed with Field AA and AT weapons, as they are certainly going to grow in size and weight, and Horsepower and Manhandling can only do so much. So there is a possibility that Finnish military is a bit more motorized then it was OTL, if only in regards to its various support branches, caused by the much capable, larger and heavier guns they are lugging around. Some sort of subsidy system could perhaps be of use there, with the state subsidysing suitable tractors and trucks, which could then be taken into military service in times of need.

Lastly, conventional artillery may also benefit immensely, due to dedicated production facilities being established for AA artillery production. Even a several more batteries of modern heavy and medium artillery could really be of an immense value to the Finns once Soviets come, especially if they also have suitably high stocks of munitions to go with them. Larger industrial facilites may also mean that production of other war related material is also increased ITTL, again benefiting Finns in their struggle..

Yes, although I try to operate as much with historic funding available. The problem with mobility of heavy artillery also is due to poor state of Finnish road network, which will improve, though. In general, mechanization was a lost cause for Finnish military and civilian life. As for improved production, you're on the right track. Historically Finnish artillery production of AA and field guns only started in late 1930's...
 
This is still in late 1920's, Vickers Medium Mark II and Vickers Independent basically represent pinnacle of development, and Finnish military believes tank threat to be rather low - as they did believe until very late in 1930's despite having basically same tanks Soviets were using, Vickers 6 ton and Carden-Lloyd, for trials. But as for future, who knows yet?
Well, at least steps in the right direction are being taken, and the Soviet Tanks that were the most numerous in Winter War, such as T-26s and BT series are certainly going to be vulnerable to 20mm autocannons which are slowly entering service with Finns. The most important thing, IMHO, is that the Finns actually have some sort of AT weapon in service, and in larger numbers as well, that allows them to knock out Soviet armour from a longer distance. Even a mediocre weapon is better then no weapon at all, and Madsen Autocannons can deal with all of the Soviet tanks that saw service in Winter War, with only notable exception being T-28s and KVs, but then again, they never were employed in any large number during that conflict.

It will be interesting to see what effect the POD and changes started by it will have on Finnish procurement of Tanks and other AFVs. It could be argued (by some in Finnish Government and Military) that tanks are inheritly a weapon of offense, in a similar way the bombers are seen, and that best counter to them would be a procurement of AT weapons, not tanks of their own. And, while I am not certain how valid this line of thought is, it is certainly cheaper to buy/manufacture AT guns, then tanks.


Yes, although I try to operate as much with historic funding available. The problem with mobility of heavy artillery also is due to poor state of Finnish road network, which will improve, though. In general, mechanization was a lost cause for Finnish military and civilian life. As for improved production, you're on the right track. Historically Finnish artillery production of AA and field guns only started in late 1930's...

I do like that you try to be as realistic as possible, and I do support your efforts in keeping the changes within the budget.

As for the state of Finnish road network, I am hardly an expert on roads, Finnish or otherwise, but I do think there are several ways that Finns could get themselves somewhat better roads then they had OTL. Road building programme could be pushed through as a way to economically revitalize some of the more isolated parts of the country, with an added bonus that it would (at least short-term) create a lot of jobs, especially once Great Depression hits.

I did think about motorization a bit, and the problems Finland would face in doing so, especially in regards to manufactoring vehicles and fueling them afterwards. However, while I was doing some digging on Finnish Industrial Companies, I have found out that both Lokomo and Tampella companies produced steam locomotives in the interwar period, and that is what caught my attention. Perhaps Finns could build Steam Trucks? They used to be relatively common before WW1, and British did use them in small numbers until after WW2, and they are hardly a highly advanced piece of machinery, too complicated for existing loconotive works to produce them. They are also rather reliable and robust pieces of machinery, with an added bonus that they are technically road locomotives, so they can use either Coal or (abundant) timber that Finland has, reducing the need for Oil.

They are a mature technology, so most if not all kinks have been figured out, and British companies of Garret, Fodden and Sentinel all produced Steam Trucks in quantity in interwar period, so licensing with one of them should not be impossible for the Finns. As for procuring the vehicles for military in quantity, they do not need to buy them by themselves, instead they can set up a subsidy system (as I suggested before) so that Civilian purchases are cheaper, but Military reserves the right to take the vehicles in case of emergency/war. Of course, Military should dictate which types are favoured, which condition the vehicles should be kept, and other such things, but it would still allow the Finnish Military to have the capabilities to get some vehicles in a hurry if there is a need for it, if only at the cost of hurting the civilian economy. Some trucks should be procured by the military nevertheless, for use in peacetime, by regular troops, for driving and maintenance training, and for military exercises/testing.
----------
Having started their domestic artillery production earlier is a good thing, especially considering that they are not under wartime pressures, and they have time to set everything up properly. With peacetime practices they will probably remove many of the kinks they would have ran into during the OTL late 30ies, sorting out various production practices, methods and machinery, as well as setting up supply lines and sites from which various raw and refined resources have to come to end up on factory floor and be turned into usable weapons.

Hope to hear from you soon.
 
It will be interesting to see what effect the POD and changes started by it will have on Finnish procurement of Tanks and other AFVs. It could be argued (by some in Finnish Government and Military) that tanks are inheritly a weapon of offense, in a similar way the bombers are seen, and that best counter to them would be a procurement of AT weapons, not tanks of their own. And, while I am not certain how valid this line of thought is, it is certainly cheaper to buy/manufacture AT guns, then tanks.

Historically the achievements of Finnish Vickers 6ton tanks, which were purchased with an amount of money which could have been used for, say, 300 anti-tank guns (or a number of new stylish barracks for Karelian Isthmus...) were nil during the Winter War. Finland had a lot of tanks in 1941 due Soviet donations and then again with unlimited amount of money available in wartime could purchase StuG-III's and Pz-IV's from Germany. In short, tanks are useful for a minor country in 1930's context if wartime budgets are available. In peacetime, in hindsight and interestingly in view of Inspector Nenonen of Artillery, they were a waste and money would have been most likely used for something more useful, even if the amount of money was divided for other Army purchases.

I do like that you try to be as realistic as possible, and I do support your efforts in keeping the changes within the budget.

As for the state of Finnish road network, I am hardly an expert on roads, Finnish or otherwise, but I do think there are several ways that Finns could get themselves somewhat better roads then they had OTL. Road building programme could be pushed through as a way to economically revitalize some of the more isolated parts of the country, with an added bonus that it would (at least short-term) create a lot of jobs, especially once Great Depression hits.

In hindsight Finland could have easily propelled itself into much higher level of industrialization with more aggressive loaning, probably killing any right- and left-wing radicalism at cradle as a side effect. However, the most enduring Finnish ideology has been the idea that one should live within his/her means. Taking loans to invest for the future would have been, and is still, something of an alien concept for the very powerful Finnish Ministry of Finance. In order to change that one should probably have a pack of wild boars massacring the Ministry Staff, or brain transplants or something...

Having started their domestic artillery production earlier is a good thing, especially considering that they are not under wartime pressures, and they have time to set everything up properly. With peacetime practices they will probably remove many of the kinks they would have ran into during the OTL late 30ies, sorting out various production practices, methods and machinery, as well as setting up supply lines and sites from which various raw and refined resources have to come to end up on factory floor and be turned into usable weapons.

Yes, the development of metal industries will receive a boost as the resources invested in airplane production are invested in artillery and precision machinery (predictors, signals, optics, searchlights etc.) industries.
 
Chapter 7
7. Aviation Branch of Finnish Air Defence Forces - the beginning

The Aviation Branch of the newly Finnish Air Defence Forces (Lennosto, quite similar term to Laivasto, Fleet, in naval use. In OTL Lennosto is used as a Finnish organizational term for Wing) was initially the junior member of the new Air Defence Forces. While operational and acquisition plans of the former Aviation Forces Commander Somersalo had been ambitious they had also been unrealistic. In view of the politicians Navy had a priority, especially as torpedo boat S-2 had been lost with all lives, demonstrating dangers of operating outdated ships. The new commander of the Aviation Branch, Lieutenant Colonel Vuori, was clearly an organization man rather than an innovator.

The primary tasks for the Aviation Branch were initially designated in descending order:

1.) Strategic reconnaissance
2.) Tactical reconnaissance on both land and sea
3.) Co-operation with Army and Navy forces in training and in war
4.) Air defense of the home front in co-operation with the air defense artillery
5.) Support for civil authorities during peace time, including aerial photography, border guard co-operation and medical evacuation
6.) Support for civil air transportation

As support tasks for primary the following were included

2A) Fighter support for tactical reconnaissance on land and sea

3A) Fighter support for co-operation tasks

The main combat units would be operational in peace time with the following equipment and location

Kaukotiedustelulaivue (Strategic reconnaissance squadron) 6x Brequet 14, Utti
Yhteistoimintalaivue 1 (Army Co-Operation Squadron) 12x Brequet 14, Suur-Merijoki (Viipuri)
Yhteistoimintalaivue 2 (Army Co-Operation Squadron) 24x IVL A.22 Hansa, Suur-Merijoki (Viipuri)
Merilentolaivue 1 (Naval Co-Operation Squadron) 24x IVL A.22 Hansa, Santahamina (Helsinki)
Merilentolaivue 2 (Naval Co-Operation Squadron) 24x ILV A.22 Hansa, Santahamina (Helsinki)
Hävittäjälentolaivue (Fighter Squadron) 18x Gourdou-Leseurre GL.2, Utti

All planes were coming to end of their useful lives and with Aviation Branch in disarray there was hurry to make new acquisitions. The new planes would be bought from foreign countries with Ilmailuvoimien Lentokonetehdas (Aviation Forces Aircraft Factory) reorganized as Lentokonevarikko (Aviation Depot) with focus on repair and modifications. Due to foreign exchange considerations Britain would be the preferred partner for new purchases with purchases from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway also possible.

(a few edits, corrections and addition to pictures)

aaf6b57f-5acb-46f6-bd45-2f43d6e2dd52

Brequet 14 with Finnish Aviation Forces personnel in front. This plane was used for numerous trials in use of radio, long distance flying and aerial photography. In Finnish service 1919-1933 (OTL 1919-1927).

Gourdou-Leseurre_GL-22_%288F.12%29_K-SIM_02.jpg

Gourdou-Leseurre fighter, in Finnish service 1923-1931. This plane was the first fighter acquired by Finland in any significant quantity.

large.unnamed-216.jpg.e8b7bc80c122c75e92ad3c6c26db1aca.jpg

IVL Hansa A.22 floatplane with Danish visitors behind. 118 were made with license production, 58 of them in order to keep the factory busy. In Finnish service 1921-1936 (as in OTL).
 
Last edited:
Nice work. So the Finnish military aviation is more like a sub-unit of Finnish Air Defence Forces, rather then independant service in its own right, that is certainly going to have impact on funding and procurement of aircraft. It is also possible, no matter how minor the chance for that may be, that the Finnish actions have impact on some other Air Services, perhaps hampering them in their effort to become independant forces, though I doubt that RAF or Luftwaffe are going to see any substantial changes.
-------
As for the man in charge, I do not know anything about him, but him being tgr described as an organizer rather then an innivator I would consider a positive thing. I mean, airpower does hold an immense potential, but considering relatively rapid rate of advancement of aerial technology in interwar period, an innovator is something a cash strapped nation as Finland can not afford. It is better (with hindsight) for them to concentrate on building all the various services, infrastructure and the like, necessary for modern air force, instead of wasting their relatively limited funds on top of the line aircraft, which is bound to become obsolete in a couple of years.
---------
As for the tasks set before the Aviation Branch, I do like how there is a substantial concentration on Reconaissance and Cooperation (with both Naval and Land forces) duties, as well as Civilian tasks and Air Transport duties, with pure Combat tasks in the background. Of course, that will not necessary remain so, especially in case of Cooperation squadrons which are very likely going to be equipped with Light/Medium bombers, and are likely to be pressed in bombing roles, likely limited to tactical level.

I am very interested in just what types of aircraft will the Finns buy this time around, with such a substantialy different doctrine set before its Aerial forces.

Keep it up.

EDIT: I am also very interested to see if the Finns will manage to make some savings in regards to their military, due to different decisions ITTL. I mean, if I understood correctly, they only need three main types of aircraft, for the frontline/combat use, that need to be comparable to the foreign designs of the time, if they keep the organization as outlined in the last chapter.

They need a long(er) range aircraft, for the Strategic Reconaissance Squadron, likely some sort of a two engined medium bomber in late 1930ies, which has been suitably modified to better perform that type of missions. It is plausable to assume that aircraft designs are going to remain the same as IOTL, but Finns are sure to modify any foreign made aircraft to better suit their needs and operational conditions, in the recently established Lentokonevarikko. What aircraft we may see, I am not exactly sure, but one of the British bomber designs of the period could be suitable for their purposes, perhaps Blenheim could serve Finns ITTL as well, if in a slightly different role.

As for the Army and Naval Cooperation Squadrons, ideally they could find a single design to standardise on, with the aircraft used in Naval roles being fitted with Floats if they insist upon it, but they could use a land based variant too. What aircraft would fit the bill however, I really have no idea, as we really do not know what Finns expect their Army/Navy Co-op Aircraft to do? They may be expected to simply do reconaissance tasks, or Artillery spotting, or they may be expected to perform Close Air Support Missions, bombing enemy troops, lines of communications and naval craft.

Fighters are also needed, and the main problem I could see arising in the future is one of the tasks outlined in the last chapter, the 2A (Fighter support for tactical reconnaissance on land and sea) and the 3A (Fighter support for co-operation tasks). Depending on the distance these Recon and Co-Op missions will have to cover, Finns could really be limited in the choice of aircraft they have. Either way, I would argue for brutal standardisation, even if performance of the chosen aircraft is not all it could be, since benefits would be felt in maintenance, reliability, cost and numerous other background affairs, that are not so often mentioned, yet are extremely important in operating an airforce on a budget. I look forward to you tackling fighter issue.

Lastly, Finns will need a decent number of other aircraft, such as training and transport aircraft, and here they really have a lot of low cost, yet decent options, which can serve them well even into Postwar period if they chose wisely. British are certainly a decent choice in this matter, but there were numerous other nations which produced decent designs for both of these types of aircraft. Hell, they could actually produce some of these trainer aircraft, especially if the license giver is generous enough to help them with setting up production.
--------
Lastly, do you have any other changes in store, that will impact other branches of the Finnish armed forces in both positive and negative ways? Like what happened with Madsen 20mm guns being issued to infantry units as their AA and AT weapon? If there is any funding that was saved by different choices made, IMHO it would be best if it went to the Land Forces, since they are the service that would really benefit the most by it, and almost anything they get would certainly make them better off then IOTL, like what happened with AA/AT Madsens ITTL. A few more batteries of field guns, more mortars and/or MGs, greater amounts of rifles and LMGs, more munitions.....

Keep up the good work.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 8
8. Aviation Branch aircraft purchases 1926-1931

Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, the most important component of the Aviation Branch, was also the best equipped. It's peacetime task would be to carry out cross-border reconnaissance missions in order to prevent possibility of surprise attack. Pictures taken by it's unmarked planes were valuable commodity with military intelligence services. As communist press tried to publish it's activities, the peacetime name was changed to Kaukotoimintalaivue (Long Distance Squadron). The planes for it were specified to be either fastest or the ones with highest altitude or preferably both qualities. For late 1920's the Aviation Branch found the perfect candidate in Junkers W34. Junkers W34 was latest in the series of succesful airliners and was produced in Sweden as military version due to Versailles treaty. Chief engineer of the Aviation Branch, Kurt Berger, realized the possibilities of the plane
and thus Aviation Branch contracted Junkers and A.B. Flygindustri, the Swedish producer of Junkers, to make a special version of W34, K43KT with higher ceiling, longer range and best cameras money could buy. With operating ceiling of 11000 meters (35000 feet) and range of some 2000 kilometers they were useful for reconnaissance up to Moscow.

Officially the modified planes were for cartographic purposes and indeed they were instrumental in mapping of Finland. As 1920's were time of aviation romance, they were also used for publicity stunts, in fact the first K34KT arrived just in time for search of Umberto Nobile's airship.

For the future, an important arrangement was made as Finnish State purchased 50,1 per cent of the stocks of Aero O/Y, the national carrier, in order to fully utilize capabilities of civilian air travel for military purposes. Small Junkers F.13's were replaced with Junkers W34's, a six passenger aircraft, for them to be used as reconnaissance and utility planes in wartime. In peacetime the small fleet was used to simulate enemy bomber formations for large scale military exercises. Aero aircraft were equipped with floats and skis, while K43KT's were used with wheels only. Two W34 was purchased for the Aviation Branch for utility, border guard and civilian co-operation mission and were outfitted as a flying ambulances.

For Army Co-Operation tasks Aviation Branch followed the conventional wisdom and purchased a batch of Fokker C.V Army co-operation planes for one squadron and for another one yet another batch of World War surplus Brequet 14 planes. One Naval Co-operation squadron was equipped with C.V's as floatplanes.

The Fighter Squadron had surplus aircraft from British Aircraft Disposal Company to purchase 24 Martinsyde Buzzards to supplement and replace Gourdou Leseurre's. It was judged that until the new generation of aircraft using aluminium construction and advanced engines became available the world war surplus planes would be good enought New generation of interceptor fighters could rise to high altitude rapidly to fight enemy bombers and standing patrols would be thing of the past. They would have top speed exceeding 300km/h. New generation fighter purchase of was scheduled for 1931.

Finally, although this would not have direct impact on combat aircraft capabilities, a commercial Finnish airplane industry was established as Veljekset Karhumäki (Brothers Karhumäki) succesfully competed in a trainer aircraft competition with their Sääski -aircraft.

Combat aircraft strength 1.1.1931

Kaukotoimintalaivue (Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron) 6x Junkers K43KT, 2x Junkers W34 transport, 5x Junkers W34 of Aero O/Y upon mobilization
Yhteistoimintalaivue 1 (Army Co-Operation Squadron) 12x Brequet 14, Suur-Merijoki (Viipuri)
Yhteistoimintalaivue 2 (Army Co-Operation Squadron) 18x Fokker C.V, Suur-Merijoki (Viipuri)
Merilentolaivue 1 (Naval Co-Operation Squadron) 18x Fokker C.V, Santahamina (Helsinki)
Merilentolaivue 2 (Naval Co-Operation Squadron) 24x IVL A.22 Hansa, Santahamina (Helsinki)
Hävittäjälentolaivue (Fighter Squadron) 18x Martinsyde F.4 Buzzard, Utti

full

In late 1930's all Junkers W34/K43's were modified for utility and training task and fitted with gunner position.

28-2.jpg

Fokker C.V's in Suur-Merijoki

Show

Martinsyde Buzzards in 1929

Show

Extra fuel tanks inside Junkers K43KT

(In OTL the FAF purchased within 1926-1931 the following combat aircraft, not counting prototypes)
1x Junkers W34 transport
6x Junkers K43 (bombers)
15x Koolhoven F.K.31 (Army co-operation)
14x Martinsyde Buzzard
8x Aero A-11 (tactical reconnaissance)
16x Aero A-32 (Army co-operation)
26x Blackburn Ripon (Naval co-operation)
17x Gloster Gamecock fighter
6x VL Kotka (Naval co-operation)

OTL total of 109 of which 14 are surplus against ATL total of 76 of which 30 are surplus. Due to smaller need of pilots the trainer purchases will also be much lower, but are not factored in. In OTL the Air Force funds for purchases totalled 127 million marks for 1926-1931. I'm assuming surplus aircraft have 1/2 cost, so one compares OTL number of 102 against ATL 61. As I'm assuming the money saved will go for anti-aircraft artillery, my rough guesstimate is 50 million more available for anti-aircraft artillery for 1926-1930.)
 
Last edited:
Nice work. So the Finnish military aviation is more like a sub-unit of Finnish Air Defence Forces, rather then independant service in its own right, that is certainly going to have impact on funding and procurement of aircraft. It is also possible, no matter how minor the chance for that may be, that the Finnish actions have impact on some other Air Services, perhaps hampering them in their effort to become independant forces, though I doubt that RAF or Luftwaffe are going to see any substantial changes.

Finland was a small country. In Nordic context, Denmark and Norway had Army and Navy air services and Sweden formed the Air Force in 1926. Let's have it have the AAA as well, like Luftwaffe did later on.

As for the man in charge, I do not know anything about him, but him being tgr described as an organizer rather then an innivator I would consider a positive thing.

Vuori has been ofter characterized as an organization man in sense of being a placeholder rather than innovator. OTOH, he worked out with slim resources in rapidly changing environment, and when he actually did propose a rather sensible development program he was kicked out.

As for the tasks set before the Aviation Branch, I do like how there is a substantial concentration on Reconaissance and Cooperation (with both Naval and Land forces) duties, as well as Civilian tasks and Air Transport duties, with pure Combat tasks in the background. Of course, that will not necessary remain so, especially in case of Cooperation squadrons which are very likely going to be equipped with Light/Medium bombers, and are likely to be pressed in bombing roles, likely limited to tactical level.

I am very interested in just what types of aircraft will the Finns buy this time around, with such a substantialy different doctrine set before its Aerial forces.

Keep it up.

It's still in 1920's, so 1930's with the new revolutionary aircraft capabilities wil present problems but also possibilities for Finnish Aviation Branch. They will also strike back against anti-aircraft-artilllery...
 
Chapter 9
9. Anti-Aircraft Branch 1926-1931 - Asking the right questions

Perhaps the most important decision for the long term in concert with the founding of Air Defense Force was establishment of Valtion Tykkitehdas (VTT) (State Artillery Factory) to Jyväskylä in 1926, which delivered it's first guns, 105mm pieces for Finnish coastal battleships, in 1929.

Guns were just one piece in the puzzle for air defense and other defense needs. A working air defense also needed multitude of technical equipment including predictors which were electomechanical computers, searchlights, radios, telephones, munitions, rangefinders - all highly developed pieces of technology very challenging for Finnish industry to make and demanding foreign currency in short supply. Finnish radio, telephone and electric industries greatly benefited from the building effort, and dividing pork was already a well known mean to support demands for public money. Valtion Hienomekaaninen Tehdas (State Factory for Precision Mechanics) was established to produce predictors and other electro-optical equipment, though until 1931 it's products consisted mostly of unworking prototypes.

Ilmapuolustuksen tutkimuslaitos
(Air Defense Research Organization) was established to research various technological and tactical issues surrounding air defense. As an invalid with amputated leg and lacking one eye and occasional migraine the now lieutenant colonel Väinö Mikkola was appointed as head of the organization. While he was approached to become chief of anti-aircraft branch or even commander of the Air Defense Forces, he refused as he felt his health could not take the strain, and besides his skill would be better used in research and development. What was not mentioned was that Mikkola was a Russian educated officer at a time where German educated officers were strongly advocating for their superiority.

In the end, this might be thought to have been an optimal outcome. Relying heavily on statistics Mikkola's some propositions were too theoretical to be implemented in reality. Mikkola did not have wartime experience in anti-aircraft artillery and despite friendly advice from France, Germany and Britain, his approach was based with assumption that like in land or naval gunnery, the range circle would present the area where target could be engaged succesfully if it's speed and height could be measured correctly. This would lead into problems with fixed positions of the anti-aircraft artillery.

The most vicious problem to be solved was the air defense of Helsinki. The city was located at shoreline of the Gulf of Finland. Any Soviet attack could approach the city directly from the south and depending on weather the alert time would be too short for fighters to take off, altough they could inflict casualties for returning bombers, and the anti-aircraft artillery would not have much time to react. Tactical solution would be the location of observation and listening posts and anti-aircraft pieces to the small islands south of the city, as had been already made. First technical solution would be to install as heavy anti-aircraft guns as possible to open fire from as far as possible. Rikama of Coastal Artillery suggested even using 152mm Canet guns for the task.

Technological solution would be situating observation posts and anti-aircraft artillery further to the sea by using either small craft or some kind of anchored platform or by situating agents near enemy airfield with radio equipment. Far fetching technological solution would be to develop means of detecting air raids beyond what eye could see. Various means were initially suggested, such as magnetic detector lines but nothing was yet found.

One technological and tactical solution which could be implemented was radio listening service which was being established in Finland by Reino Hallamaa. Due to necessity of fast transmission, the radio codes used by aircraft would be easy to break, and even signals analysis and triangulation would produce operationally useful results.

115244_r500.jpg

Goerz acoustic locator in action, Winter War

 
Last edited:
Huh. I'm curious what where some of these. Something that would later relate to Radar?

Long range detection radar might just be feasible, but I decided Finland should not roll all sixes. :)

I refer to tactical ideas of trusting too much on accuracy of anti-aircraft guns, enemy aircraft flying always straight and level etc. A kind of similar ideas what various air force officers of the time had on efficiency of bombers in order to judge their personal pet projects. In a Finnish example, in an OTL study of 1934 an AF officer (Aarne Snellman) had Soviet bombers who were always finding targets with perfect accuracy and defending themselves with perfect shooting ability. These bombers were capable of easily sweeping any anti-aircraft guns aside. The only solution was to have a bomber-destroyer fighter.

"Ilmapuolustuskysymyksen selvittelyä" Aarne Snellman, Tiede ja Ase 1934

https://journal.fi/ta/article/view/47261

As we know now, this was a worldwide issue with various air forces in the world, much because lack of realistic exercises.
 
How close a link with the British can the Finns realistically have at this period? I as because in the late 1920's and early 1920's the British government and the RAF was investing heavily (for the time) in developing sound location for air defence. ITTL I could see the Finns building fixed sound mirrors on some of the islands south of Helsinki. When Sound detection proves inadequate as aircraft speeds increase then as in GB, this could spur research into other means of tracking approaching aircraft.
 
Chapter 10
10. Anti-Aircraft Branch: Birth of the branch and plans before expansion - 1926-1931

First large scale plans for Finnish anti-aircraft artillery was made in 1923 by Coastal Defense Committee. The plan proposed 60 batteries of 75mm heavy AA-guns, 48 listening posts, 33 searchlights, 3 observation balloons, 76 3,7cm automatic cannons (38 batteries) and 128 anti-aircraft machine guns. Total wartime personnel requirements would be 296 officers, 1077 NCO's and 4177 other ranks. Smaller plan of 74 3,7cm automatic cannons and 36 75mm AA-guns together with listening posts and assorted equipment was estimated to cost roughly 120 million marks implemented over ten year period with fixed costs of 5,5 million marks per year.

Before succesful anti-aircraft propaganda the final study was made in connection with the Hornborg committee, which estimated 123 million mark cost spread out for 10 years. This pland would give the Field Army total of 44 75mm guns in four gun batteris, totalling 3000 men. Fixed anti-aircraft defense for home front would have 14 75mm guns, 17 3,7mm light automatic cannons and 40 13-20mm anti-aircraft machine guns. In addition some Coastal Artillery guns would be modified for anti-aircraft duties and Aviation Forces would get close defense guns. As for training, the peacetime organization would be an Anti-Aircraft battalion with annual intake of 180 men. Fixed defense would be organized by voluntary Suojeluskunta organization.

(The proposals above were OTL proposals)


The Finnish Air Defense Forces initially had three branches, Aviation Branch (Lennosto), Anti-Aircraft Artillery branch (Ilmatorjuntatykistö) and dept (Ilmapuolustusvarikko), something akin of the Finnish Navy which had Fleet, Coastal Artillery and Military Port branches. In 1931 reorganization air observation and signals branch was added (Ilmavalvonta) was added under command of Uolevi Poppius, yet another technically educated artillery officer.

First commander of the Air Defense Force was Taavetti Laatikainen between 1926-1931. Although no genius, he was a jovial and boozing officer who could get along with Mannerheim. He was also a Finnish speaking Jaeger officer so he was politically acceptable in the spirit of the era. In fact, as he was more interested in social relations he was happy to leave decisions for his subordinates.

The Anti-Aircraft Branch was fortunate in getting a good organizer and tactician, Frans Helminen, onboard in addition to Väinö Mikkonen who was more of a scientific genius. Frans Helminen was also a Russian educated officer which initially was problematic, but being a commander of the anti-aircraft branch was seen less important by the Jaeger officers and thus he was tolerated. In 1930's his expertise and skill were widely recognized and the issue was buried.


helminen.200x0.jpg

Frans Helminen (1894-1957), Commander of Anti-Aircraft Branch, 1926-1945 (ATL) In OTL Helminen was the best of the class in Finnish War College 1927-1929 and had long and succesfull career in air defence, including being commander of Finnish anti-aircraft defenses during the Winter War and commander of the Finnish Air Force 1946-1952. Reached rank of a Lieutenant General. His son, Rauli Helminen, also had an succesful career in air defense reaching rank of a Major General)


laatikainen.200x0.jpg

Taavetti Laatikainen (1886-1954), first commander of air defense forces 1926-1931 (ATL). Had good relations with Mannerheim who overlooked his many alcohol related incidents (in OTL as well as ATL).

 
Chapter 11
11. Anti-Aircraft Artillery Branch: 1926-1931: Acquisitions and mobilization tasks

While various fantastical long term plans were made for the future of the Anti-Aircraft Artillery, one must take a look what was actually bought. Initial acquisitions were, as mentioned, French 75mm surplus anti-aircraft guns which were upgraded in Finland by State Artillery Factory. Total of 56x 75mm fixed guns were acquired with predictor equipment and of them 32, enough for 8 batteries, were upgraded to a standard 75 ItK 15-28 P-S between 1926-1931. First batch of 40 20mm Madsen guns was also ordered. The mobilization tasks which could be fulfilled in 1931 were as follows:

8 mobile batteries, 4x 75 ItK 15-29 P-S, to support the Field Army
12 fixed batteries, 2x 75 ItK/97-15 P (Canon de 75 mm de antiaérien mle 1915) - 6 for Helsinki, 4 for Viipuri, 2 for Turku
1 fixed battery of Vickers 76 ItK/16 V (2 pieces), Kouvola
1 fixed battery of 76/ItK 14 Putilov (2 pieces), Riihimäki


-Total of 60 heavy guns, 28 fixed, 32 mobile

10 anti-aircraft machinegun companies (heavy), each with 4 Madsen 20mm - to support field troops

-Total of 40 20mm AA-guns.

25 anti-aircraft machinegun platoons (light), each with 4 Maxim MMG's on tripods fitted with aerial sights. 10 for home defence, 15 for field army.

The peacetime unit for 1926-1931 was the Anti-Aircraft Regiment (Ilmatorjuntarykmentti) located in Viipuri. Summer training camps were held in Muurila, Karelian Isthmus. Joint exercises with Air Branch and Fleet were held in Helsinki.

The proposed fixed batteries and automatic cannons of 30-45 mm were supposed to be acquired from 1931 onwards.


2u9oohw.jpg

French 75mm CA 1917/34, which closely resembled Finnish 75 ItK/15-28 P-S

Notes:

I think the amount presented above is somewhat realistic approximation on what could be bought with around 50 million marks, if surplus equipment is tolerated. I counted upgrade cost of 75 ItK to be 600 000 marks (half of a new gun in 1937) and cost of a fixed surplus gun to be 300 000 marks (1/4 of a new mobile gun), cost of 20mm AA gun to be 400 000 marks (13mm AAMG 250 000 marks in 1937, 40mm Bofors with advanced sights 800 000 marks). Total of 52 million marks.

In OTL Finland also acquired 16 Bofors 76mm guns in 1927-1931 with equipment which are not purchased ITTL and the sum is used for predictors, sights etc.

In OTL, when Finnish Army was mobilized in October 1939 the anti-air artillery consisted of 38x 76mm guns, 9x 40mm Bofors guns, 4x 20mm Oerlikons from early 20's and 125x 7,63mm AAMG's. When the war began, the number of 40mm guns had risen to 53 and number of 20mm guns to 34 thanks to emergency acquisitions.
 
Last edited:
How close a link with the British can the Finns realistically have at this period? I as because in the late 1920's and early 1920's the British government and the RAF was investing heavily (for the time) in developing sound location for air defence. ITTL I could see the Finns building fixed sound mirrors on some of the islands south of Helsinki. When Sound detection proves inadequate as aircraft speeds increase then as in GB, this could spur research into other means of tracking approaching aircraft.

Sound detection mirrors would be cool, definitely have to allow them. If for nothing else, they will provide background of fashion and band photography for decades. ;)
 
British scientists had from sound ranging system of the First World War developed hot wire microphone that were world leaders at the time. It really is quite a fascinating piece of forgotten technology.
 
British scientists had from sound ranging system of the First World War developed hot wire microphone that were world leaders at the time. It really is quite a fascinating piece of forgotten technology.

Yes, though it may well resurface as the sound detection is passive, microphones and communication devices are unbelievably cheap nowadays and acoustic detection can also be used to locate artillery and even ground troops - as it has been historically since WWI.
 
Chapter 12
12. 1931-1936 Aviation Branch plane purchases and dreams

Overall, the Aviation Branch composition remained similar in 1931-1936 to the structure in 1926-1936. In late 1930's due to military build-up and new planes there were reorganizations.

Strategic reconnaissance

As technology improved rapidly, there was need for better reconnaissance aircraft. In 1933 five Heinkel He-70's were ordered for cartographic purposes. The order was delivered rapidly and cheaply as German military was promised access to reconnaissance photos. Two Junkers 52's of Aero were added to reserve capabilities and also simulated large bombers
in exercises.

Fighters


Again, we can spend pages on dreams on what should have been purchased but it's more fruitful to take a look on what was actually funded. The Aviation Branch Fighter Squadron got
new fighters at last as 16 Hawker Fury aircraft were ordered in 1931 for delivery in 1932. The Fighter Squadron was happy with their new planes which served even with limited success during the Winter War.

While the Aviation Branch had good publicity one episode showed how one rotten apple impacts the whole batch. Former commander of the Aviation Forces, Arne Somersalo, had been heavily involved with the Lapuan Movement, a Finnish right wing/fascist organization. When the Lapuan movement attempted it's sorry attempt for a coup in 1932 a young hothead pilot from the Fighter Squadron flew his Martinsyde Buzzard to Mäntsälä in order to show support for the coup attempt. While rest of the Armed Forces were under control of General Sihvo who organized his troops to cordon the coup area and even prepared for a counter-attack, the Aviation Branch was grounded. Väinö Vuori was forced out of the Air Branch commander position and Aarne Snellman was put into commanding position which he held until 1945.

Aarne Snellman strongly tried to raise the status of the Aviation Branch which was difficult due to Branch having bad reputation in the political centre. Snellman argued for fighters to be given more important role in air defense, as in his view anti-air-artillery could be either swamped or silenced rather easily by massed attacks. At the same time, only a fighter with heavy armament, preferably with 2000 meters range, could fight heavily defended bombers. The fighter should also have long endurance to stay airborne for a long time as the primary role of the fighter would be to attack bombers on their way back to Russia. Fighters would also increase the efficiency of anti-aircraft artillery as they would make nuisance raids very dangerous and would force enemy planes to use tight formations for defence.

Aarne Snellman and chief engineer of the Aviation Branch Kurt Berger contacted Fokker about a possibility of designing a plane for Finnish specifications. Fokker proposed a twin engine, heavily armed fighter with high speed, high endurance and long range. The plane could fulfill both long range reconnaissance and fighter roles. It could also fulfill the army co-operation tasks as well but would probably have too high cost. The concept was named G.1 and was scheduled for the first flight in 1937. While the plane was very promising on paper, the engines for it seemed not to be powerful enough, but then finally fortune struck the Aviaton Branch instead of disasters it had been encountering.

Army Co-Operation

In 1932 16 Fokker C.V's were ordered to replace IVL Hansa's of Army Co-Operation Squadron 2. These planes were ordered as kits and assembled in Veljekset Karhumäki aircraft factory in Kuorevesi.

Naval Co-Operation

Junkers K43's and W34's were repurposed as naval planes to replace aging IVL Hansa's. They were fewer in number, but had improved performance. Additionally in 1936 4 remaining Aero W34's were purchased for naval patrol tasks.

Aviation Branch Combat units 1.1.1937

Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron: 5x He-70S - to be re-engined in 1937
Army Co-Operation Squadron 1: 16x Fokker C.V
Army Co-Operation Squadron 2: 16x Fokker C.V
Naval Co-Operation Squadron 1: 16x Fokker C.V (Floats)
Naval Co-Operation Squadron 2: 10x Junkers K43
Fighter Squadron: 16x Hawker Fury

Total number of purchases 1931-1936: 37 single-engine combat planes

(OTL 18 twin engined combat planes (Blenheim), 59 single-engine combat planes for a total cost of 182 million marks. For comparison to ATL I count each Blenheim having 1,5 times cost of single engine combat plane and each He-70 having cost of a Blenheim. Thus total of 86 planes OTL against ATL total of 40. This would leave some 115 million marks for anti-aircraft artillery purchases. Historically AAA received 12 modern 3" Vickers guns in 1936.)


3597458221_14aeefdce5_b.jpg

Heinkel 70 in civilian livery

800px-Hawker_Fury_I_K5674_%28G-CBZP%29_%286839677044%29.jpg

Hawker Fury in RAF livery. The aircraft had excellent performance for it's time and served in numerous air forces, although not in Finnish Air Force of OTL.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 13
13. Defensor Capitoli - Building up the air defense for Helsinki

13.1. Guns, guns, guns

The main focus of anti-aircraft effort in 1932-1936 was the build-up of anti-aircraft defense for Helsinki and Viipuri. Helsinki as the capital city, most important population and industrial center, was the natural focus of the defense effort. Viipuri was the second largest city and also major logistical center for Army of the Isthmus in wartime.

In defensive tasks Helsinki was the only one designated with priority number I, Viipuri the only one with priority number II. Turku, Kouvola and Riihimäki were with priority number III, Tampere, Jyväskylä and Oulu with priority number IV.

The new organization for defending Helsinki was called Helsingin Ilmatorjuntarykmentti (Helsinki AA regiment).

As reference when developing air defense for Helsinki the defense of Paris and London were used as for comparison. In the end, air defense of Paris with it's better command and control facilities and simpler layout between fighter and anti-aircraft defense zones was used as inspiration. In French model of anti-aircraft defense the idea was that commander of the anti-aircraft battalion would decide the target for the battalion which would shoot the target with at least two batteries. First shot would be with time on target to ensure maximum effect. To ensure this a good command and control network would be essential together with automatic fuze setting machinery. During night, unless target was spotted with lead searchlight, only barrage firing would be possible.

Mikkola was very optimistic with the ballistic capabilities of 105mm anti-aircraft gun, assuming 8000 meters range for firing which in practice proved to be too far. In hindsight, he also did not create a schwerpunkt but wanted to ensure good all-round capability. This meant that theoretically the four fixed batteries were deployed in a diamond formation, with 8000 meters distance between each battery and distance of 5500 meters from the protected point, Helsinki railway station. Thus the fixed batteries were deployed Santahamina, Viikki, Haaga and Lauttasaari.

Each super-heavy battery had two twin turrets situated 300 meters apart with a fire control station in the middle. For close-in defense four twin 7,62mm AAMG's were provided.
A battery cost some 20 million marks, which was a very large sum. In the end, only Helsinki got fixed superheavy batteries for a total of 80 million marks. Each battery was akin of something like warship on the rocks and received names like warship. (Kullervo,

Theoretically it was estimated than when counting the shell weight and area to be covered the four super heavy batteries would be equivalent of 36 four gun 76mm batteries, or 108 pieces, and this was not even counting the height which could be achieved. As for price, 108 modern 76mm pieces alone (1,2 million marks each) would have cost some 130 million marks and 36 predictors with reserve equipment (2 million marks each) some 72 million, for a total of 200 million marks.

A battery cost some 20 million marks, which was a very large sum. In the end, only Helsinki got fixed superheavy batteries for a total of 80 million marks. Each battery was akin of something like warship on the rocks and received names like warship (Aino, Kyllikki, Marjatta, Tellervo).

13.2. Detection, command and control

For detecting the enemy air attack the earliest warning would be provided by radio intercepts. This would be followed by acoustic location equipment, large scale sound mirrors of British style were constructed in some of the islands close to Helsinki. Aerial observation posts were from 1936 onwards connected through filtering centers (IPAK) to national air command center (Pääjohtokeskus) located in Ilmala, Helsinki, with callsign Akropoli. National air command center had direct line to YLE radio broadcasting center which could give air raid warnings through radio broadcast with coded map.

With increasing speed of aircraft from 1938 onwards the data of aerial targets was transferred electronically from plotting boards of filtering centers to national air command center.
Aerial observation posts were planned to be installed on ice on Gulf of Finland during winter, and during summertime use of picket boats was planned.

After batteries were alerted they could spot the target by visual means or try to get target data from searchlights during night. Searchlight units had acoustic locators whose information was used in order to try to find target with larger (150-210cm diameter) searchlights. After target was located, it was followed by smaller lead searchlights (90-110cm diameter). Lead searchlights transferred the bearing and azimuth data to batteries and battalion command posts automatically, so they could in principle form a target plot with two or more searchlights. In practice, this data was used to help predictor to find a target.

Predictor was aimed visually to target selected by battery commander. The predictors range and bearing information was transferred electronically to the superheavy battalion command post in which battalion commander could, if he wanted, direct the whole engagement with the target. Time on target was constantly calculated to ensure that 8 first shells would detonate simultaneously on target. The whole process was something more akin to artillery use of a warship than that of an antiaircraft unit and owed much to French ideas.

105mm guns had mechanical time fuzes which were automatically set by fuze setting device (turned to correct position) to ensure rapid and accurate firing.

The whole arrangement was incredibly ambitious and indeed, while the building was finished in 1935 it was only in 1938 that everything worked properly.


154132_r500.jpg

Primitive command plot used in 1920's and later on with divisional anti-aircraft battalions

153835_r500.jpg

Battalion command post, auxiliary plotting table


german-88-mm-fuze-markings-fig75.jpg

On left and right, time fuzes of German 88mm AA-gun. Notice the setting ring on both.

118163_r500.jpg

The whole anti-aircraft machinery demanded an incredible amoung of precision engineering, demanding much care.


(Note: I'm assuming the money saved from not purchasing Vickers guns and their assorted equipment, roughly 20 million marks, will go to improving signals and command equipment.)
 
Last edited:
Top