What If - Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

Radar for AA Guns and for the Merivoimat

Nokia AA Gun Radar

With the success of the first Nokia Radars, Nokia was immediately asked to design, build, and test radar antenna equipment to be used with the Bofors 76mm anti-aircraft gun batteries that were the mainstay of fixed AA defences. Working under top-secret security conditions, Nokia managed to build the project ahead of schedule, and at only 44% of the estimated cost! The system was packaged in several truck and trailer loads and was by no means a mobile system. Design work began in mid-1938, and again it would appear that the Nokia effort benefitted substantially from the work completed in Germany. By October 1938, Tigerstedt had completed detailed designs (and had also spent some time with the Manager of the Ford Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plant at Hernesaari, near Helsinki. The Ford Manager advised Tigerstedt that the paraboloid antenna could not only be made of steel, but could be stamped using auto presses; he also criticized the gearing Tigerstedt used to turn the dish, advising Tigerstedt that it was unsatisfactory on several counts, including long trains of spur gears, weight, parts non-interchangeability, and inability to achieve close accuracy.

Tigerstedt was no mechanical engineer – he asked Ford to work on the design and a small team of Ford engineers was brought in immediately. They did a complete redesign while the Nokia team continued to work on the radar receiver and transmitter design. The end result was that the system cost a mere 20% of the originally estimated per-unit cost (at 460,000 Markka per unit rather than the 2,400,000 Markka per unit originally budgeted). The Nokia team had developed an accurate system based on a klystron microwave tube operating in the range of 54 to 53 cm (553 to 566 MHz) – an extremely short wavelength for the time – with a pulse length of 2 microseconds, a peak power of 7 to 11 kW, and a PRF of 3,750 Hz. The radar used a large 7.4m paraboloid dish antenna and had a a maximum range of about 43 kilometers. Lobe switching had been added to the design to improve aiming accuracy. This was achieved by sending the signal out of one of two slightly off-centre feed horns in the middle of the antenna, the signal being switched rapidly between the two horns. Both returns were sent to an oscilloscope display, slightly delaying the signal from one of the horns. The result appeared as two closely separated "spikes" which the operator attempted to keep at the same height on the display. This system offered much faster feedback on changes in target position, and since any change in signal strength would affect both lobes equally, the operator no longer had to "hunt" for the maximum signal point. An almost identical system was used by both the United States' first gun-laying radar, the SCR-268, and the German Würzburg C Radar. Azimuth accuracy was 0.2 degress amd elevation 0.1 degrees, more than good enough for direct gun-laying.

A prototype had been built over November-December 1938, minor modifications were made after trials and production began in March 1939. One Radar unit was teamed with a heavy anti-aircraft battery of four Bofors 76mm AA Guns (the standard Finnish Heavy AA Gun by this time, built under license by Tampella), a power source and a Stromberg-built gun director. The scanning pedestal or antenna mount turned at 1,750 revolutions per minute. The system interpreted the return signal and determined direction, speed, altitude, and course of the target. Once locked on, the antenna tracked target evasive moves and synchronized the guns. The equipment was designed to cope with aircraft speeds up to 700 miles per hour, up to 60,000 feet, at a target distance of not less than eight miles. The top-secret proximity fuse which Tigerstedt had designed completed the ensemble, since it was effective if triggered within about seventy feet of the target. Gear train accuracy was fundamental to success. In a matter of months, the whole project had been taken from concept to production thanks to a small group of Finnish scientists and engineers. Nokia engineers masterminded the principal electronic features of the apparatus while Ford Finland solved pedestal mounting, dish rotation, and transportation aspects of the system.

The paraboloid reflector dish was engineered at Ford Hernesaari to be made out of steel, rather than the aluminum used in the experimental model at the Nokia Laboratory. Ford Hernesaari was asked to work out the unsolved mechanical problems of gunlaying short-wave radar, and then develop manufacturing machines, tools, processes to achieve quantity production. The AA Gun Radar required gearing that would hold to a maximum accumulated backlash of 3.375 minutes out of a total 21,600 minutes of measurement. The motor specified turned 3,600 rpm. The dish could turn a maximum of eight times per minute horizontally and less than four times per minute in elevation. Thus reductions were necessary of 472 to 1 and 1,080 to 1 respectively. So far as was known up to that time, the solution was another Ford First: a special planetary-type gear arrangement 2 and 7/16 inches thick and 6 and 7/8 inches in diameter produced a reduction to 120.8 to 1. In turn, this was made to connect with three conventional spur gears with an additional reduction of near 9 to 1, bringing total reduction to 1,080 to 1. The total reduction was completed in a smaller space than the conventional approach of using three spur gears to obtain 8 to 1 reduction. The combination of dual planet gears, in association with a fourth member, a second annulus gear, was unique as far as was known at the time. The parties involved in the project considered this engineering success one of the major contributions to the success of the antenna system.

In addition, the spinner motor required an unlubricated air seal to prevent absorption of short wave impulses by the hollow radio frequency transmission lines. The seal held six pounds of pressure, provided by a small compressor. Friction was minimized by use of a special Ford finishing process, yielding 95 percent optically-flat surfaces on the bellows and seal. The carbon disc (shades of Fluid Drive) between the housing seal and sleeve was also finished in this manner. Pedestal support castings served as dimensional foundations for the whole assembly, and thus were made to extreme accuracy. All wire harnessing was color-coded to distinguish separate circuits, totally interchangeable, machine-tape-bound, and fungus/insect resistant. Ford Engineering also designed a special 19 foot, ten-ton semi-trailer to carry all the components of the Radar. By no means were these commercial trailers, since they were much stronger.

Nokia and Ford shipped unit one to the military for accelerated testing on December 4, 1938. System two was placed in the military’s hands on December 26, 1938. Two more went to the Antiaircraft Board for preliminary trials. Because of the urgent need, Ford and Nokia continued to produce while the intensive testing proceeded and completed a further five systems during the testing period through to March 1939. By August 31, 1939, 61 systems had been shipped and all existing Heavy AA Gun Batteries were equipped with the units. Production then continued at a slower pace. The production of the Stromberg-built gun directors proved to be more of a bottleneck than production of the radars (something we will cover when we turn to looking at AA Guns in detail).

gwurz.gif

A Nokia NR-I-03/39 AA Gun Radar. The operators enjoyed the comfort of a cabin. Most NR-I-03/39’s were fixed, but the radar could also be mounted on a railway wagon for a degree of mobility.

fuse65e300low.jpg

Railway-wagon mounted Nokia NR-I-03/39 AA Gun Radar. A small number of these were used in the fighting on the Karelian Isthmus, mostly in conjunction with AA defence for the large caliber Railway Guns that the Maavoimat used in limited numbers.

fuse65ezug300low5.jpg

Nokia NR-I-03/39 AA Gun Radar prepared for railway transportation. The entire unit weighed approximately 25 tons.

fuse65eantmontage13005.jpg

Nokia NR-I-03/39 AA Gun Radar antenna dish being mounted onto both hinge frames

fuse65e300kabine15.jpg

Nokia NR-I-03/39 AA Gun Radar Control Cabin being moved into place

The Nokia NR-I-03/39 achieved outstanding results in the Winter War. In all cases, use of the equipment to direct the hurling of a deluge of 76mm antiaircraft shells saved many Finnish lives, both civilian and military. Tampella continued to produce Bofors 76mm AA guns through the Winter War, resulting in a steady increase in the protection able to be offered to important industrial and military facilities as well as to the larger cities. The accuracy of Finnish AA Gun fire was already high – with the steadiy increasing use of the Nokia NR-I-03/39 combined with the new proximity fuses, it became lethal to Soviet aircraft to venture anywhere within the range of Finnish Heavy AA Gun batteries.

After the Winter War, Nokia continued to incorporate design improvements and work to reduce the size of the equipment whilst maintaining its effectiveness. The end result was by early 1944 a mobile unit needing only one truck and trailer to transport, capable of being erected and in use within twenty minutes.

ww2radar.jpg

The Nokia Mobile Radar system was a truck-mounted search radar used post-1943 by Maavimat AA Gun Batteries.
Radar for the Merivoimat


With the first Nokia Radar’s proving to be effective for air and surface surveillance from coastal stations, attention turned almost immediately to the parallel development of naval versions, one for long range detection of surface and air threats, and two further types, one specifically for naval gunnery and the other for Naval AA gun control.
Long-range surveillance was perhaps the most easily addressed – the existing radar being installed in the Kotkansilmä sites was rather rapidly navalized and designated the "NR-M/01/39." Some design modifications were made to improve performance, resulting in a maximum range against a ship-sized target at sea of up to 140 miles on a good day, though rather more typically it was only half that. Still, this was a significant improvement on visual observation and worked equally as well in darkness. A prototype set was available from the Nokia team by the end of 1938, and put through successful sea trials in early-1939. The "NR-M/01/39" sets began to be installed on Merivoimat Destroyers starting in mid-1939, following which the sets were then installed progressively on the ASW Corvettes and Icebreakers.

destroyerradar.jpg

Finnish Grom-class Destroyer fitted with the long-range surveillance "NR-M/01/39", surface fire control "NR-M/02/39" and anti-aircraft fire control "NR-M/03/39" radars. By the summer of 1940, Finnish Destroyers fairly bristled with antennae of various sorts – 3 types of radar, radio and radio direction-finding aerials. They also bristled with AA Guns.

A substantial effort went into the development of a Radar that could be used for naval gunfire control. Designs for a production set for long-range surveillance, "NR-M/01/39", surface fire control, the "NR-M/02/39", and for anti-aircraft fire control, the "NR-M/03/39", were finalized shortly after the trials and all were in place in January 1940 and were being delivered to the Merivoimat and installed on ships starting from February 1940. All the Merivoimat radar types used "Yagi" antennas, essentially a row of dipoles of increasing size mounted on a rod, with the beam generated along the axis of the rod. The antennas, which workers also called "fishbones" for their appearance, were arranged at slightly different angles away from the centerline of the radar, with each side driven in an alternating fashion. The returns to each side would be different until the target was on the centerline. This technique, known as "lobe switching", could provide very precise azimuth angles. Both the NR-M/01/39and NR-M/02/39 had horizontal lobe-switching while the NR-M/03/39 also had vertical lobe-switching, which would was handy for an air-defense radar.

Maximum range against a ship-sized target at sea was up to 220 kilometers (140 mi) on a good day, though more typically half that. Performance was otherwise similar to the land-based system, with a range accuracy of about 50 m. This was considerably more accurate than the guns they ranged for, which typically had spreads of over 100 m. It was also much better than the optical rangefinding equipment of the era, which would typically be accurate to about 200 m at 20,000 m. As far as radar equipment for naval AA guns was concerned, it would have been impossible to adapt the early radar with its huge parabolic antenna and designed for heavy AA gun batteries for naval use on Destroyers and Corvettes. The equipment was simply to large and unwieldy. A decision was made to try and adapt the existing NR-M/03/39 for AA gun control. The new radar was designated the NR-M/03/39 and was a “Yagi” (mattress) style 2m x 4m antenna mounted in a yardarm. This radar also had lobe switching, giving it a high enough degree of accuracy to be useful for direction of AA guns, but the movement arc was limited and technicalities had not been fully though through at the time of the start of the Winter War.

The problem of retrofitting Radar equipment into Finnish warships was solved in various ways for each of the different types in servive. In the Grom-class destroyers, a new Radar cabin was generally shoe-horned in behind the bridge while the Radar mast and antenna were fitted to the existing mast. On the ASW Corvettes with their more limited space, the cabin was also located immediately behind the bridge and was a rather confined space for the equipment and personnel. Security was paramount but inconsistent in these fittings. Official photographs of the ships would have the sparsely ribbed, bird cage antenna censored from the top of the mast, whereas standard Supply Demands would have the shipment marked with the notation "for installation in the RDF cabin". Initially, each Radar-equipped ship was required to carry six additional Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) operators, two additional Wireless Telegraphy (W/T) Petty Officers and a RDF Officer, all specially trained in the use of the equipment. Radar detachments received very specialized training, including how to maintain and repair there equipment, and were also responsible for the security of the equipment. They carried sidearms, no non-detachment personnel were permitted within the Radar cabin, with the sole exceptions being the Captain and First Lieutenant of the ship. They kept very much to themselves, having little in common with the average seaman with whom they were quartered as Merivoimat security were concerned that some individuals might overhear and possibly, with careless talk, unconsciously pass on sensitive information.

Overall, Merivoimat Radar was probably the best in the world overall in late 1939, and the Merivoimat had certainly devoted time, resources and training to the effective integration of radar into maritime combat. The quality of both the equipment and the radar personnel was high. The Merivoimat’s special training facility at the Turku Naval Base which used simulated combat conditions to train naval personnel had a marked impact on the effectiveness of naval personnel in combat. Nicknamed “FNS Paniikki,” the simulator (contained within a large warehouse) combined mockups of the Bridge, Gun turrets, AA Gun positions, Engine Room, radar and radio offices and other key positions on movable platforms which could be rocked and swung to simulate conditions at sea, while movie screens portrayed simulated external views. Weather and sound conditions were also simulated, to the extent that participating personnel were often drenched in sea water and deafened by explosions, all whilst having to respond to every combination of circumstances that the training personnel could think of. Radar was quickly incorporated into the simulation and its usefulness drilled into naval officers.

Other radio-based equipment

Other radio-based equipment was also added to the warships over 1938 and 1939, all of it sharing the existing Radio and Radar cabins and all requiring additional personnel to use it. And all of it proved invaluable in the fighting to come. Aside from Radar, all Finnish warships also found themselves being fitted with modern VHF voice radios for voice communications within naval task groups and convoys (VHF radio sets for Finnish merchant ships were slowly stockpiled and personnel to used them trained – the plan was that in the event of war actually breaking out, they would be retroactively fitted into Finnish merchant ships, as indeed they were). Incidentally, a similar approach was taken to the installation of AA guns on Finnish merchant ships, with both 40mm and 20mm AA guns supposedly being stockpiled for installation on merchant ships. With this in mind, many Finnish merchant ships found gun platforms being added post October-1938 as they docked in Finland to unload and load cargo. In the event, most of the AA guns stockpiled for this purposed were actually taken over by the Maavoimat when war looked inevitable).

VHF voice radio was quickly being adopted over 1938-1939 thanks to developments in the Ilmavoimat and the tactical use of voice radio was perhaps the most important advance in wireless communications made by the Merivoimat. This explosion of voice radio reduced the amount of communication passed by flag or light signals. Erik Larsson of Turku describes some radio fittings when he joined the Merivoimat. "In 1937 when I joined the Naval Reserves, all Merivoimat destroyers were fitted with Merivoimat radio gear. When I first joined the ship, she had, in the radio office, a single tube Naval Pattern transmitter with a spark gap transmitter as a back up and a a low power transmitter and receiver for fire control purposes. All receivers were battery operated. In 1939, we got out first VHF Voice Radio which was used as a voice intercom between ships. Now, the ship had radiotelephone capability, but early in the game, only the captain or a specially designated officer was allowed to use it.”

A further piece of equipment that was also installed in 1939 was High Frequency Direction Finding (HF/DF) sets. Medium and low frequency radio signals have very long wavelengths so there is little hope of building efficient, highly directional shipboard DF antennas at these frequencies. However, at relatively short distances, even a small antenna will work because enough signal will be present for detection. Most warships of the inter-war period were fitted with direction finders whose antennas consisted of a pair of crossed loops. They were generally described as navigational in nature, but they could also be used as a means of detecting enemy transmitters “just beyond the horizon”. High frequency direction finding (HF/DF) was a relatively new development at the outbreak of hostilities in late 1938 and experience in correct operating techniques had to be gained step by painful step during the actual fighting.

The shipborne HF/DF sections were charged with the task of intercepting and reading Soviet (and later German) low-grade radiotelephone traffic. Generally speaking, operators were fluent in Russian (and later were also expected to be fluent in German). “Every large warship (in Merivoimat terms that meant Destroyers, ASW Corvettes and the ASW Patrol Boats) was provided with an HF/DF Unit for the interception and interpretation of enemy air and naval R/T on VHF. Some fifty Merivoimat warships in all were fitted with HF/DF units”.

hfdfoffice.jpg

This is the actual HF/DF Office aboard a Merivoimat Grom-class Destroyer during the Winter War. Pictured is the Nokia Model 01/39 receiver unit which was only removed in 1949 (Merivoimat photo MK-1749-49)

Antti Nikulainen of Viipuri relates his experiences as an HF/DF operator. "Being a seaman a well as having knowledge of Russian (my parents were Ingrians from Leningrad who had crossed the border to Finland shortly after the Bolshevik’s took over there), I volunteered for any job where I could be of use. Once I was drafted to a ship, I was accompanied with a special Nokia VHF radio set, plus aerial and of course a copy of the code used by the enemy. On the destroyer I was assigned to, my action station was in a small office just below and aft of the bridge. Communication with the bridge was through voice pipe. Even when not at action stations monitoring the radio, I would listen in on what was happening on the bridge. On one occasion, enemy aircraft were giving a sighting report on our position while leaving Kotka and only a short time later, we were attacked by enemy bombers! On another occasion, I picked up a transmission from an enemy submarine and the Captain used that to help find the submarine, which we later attacked with a couple of other ships. We sank the submarine, which at the time I found very satisfying. Later on I volunteered for service in the new ships we were starting to get and I ended up being assigned to one the Light Cruisers we got from the Italians, fortunately not the one that was sunk by the Germans, and stayed on that as the Section Chief right through to the end of WW2. I think the most dangerous time I had was on the Helsinki Convoy when we had to fight the Germans to get through. Overall, it was a fascinating job almost guaranteeing action – and we saw plenty of that".

From the beginning of 1939, the Merivoimat had a shore based HF/DF organization in existence. The network of stations grew rapidly over 1939 to include shore stations down the length of the Gulf of Finland and on the island fortresses. Using these HF/DF stations, cross bearings could be taken by means of all these stations and fixes were plotted by the operational filter rooms. Naval ships would then be alerted and the courses of merchant ships altered, if necessary and aircraft or naval hunter-killer anti-submarine groups could be dispatched to the area of a HF/DF fix. These HF/DF stations were normally co-located with the new radar stations that were being setup at much the same time, and informationwas fed up to the same “Filter Rooms” for operational use. The addition of more shore stations and the installation of HF/DF equipmengt eventually produced a system that was amazingly accurate, particularly in identifying Soviet submarine transmissions in the Spring and Summer of 1940, when the Soviet Navy attempted unrestricted submarine warfare in the Baltic. Between using Radar and HF/DF, fixes could be quickly obtained on enemy units and then broadcast to the ASW warships at sea.

Mikael Laine of Kotka was an Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer with the Merivoimat during World War II. He gives a glimpse into the methods used to report the vicinity of Soviet (and later German) submarines. "From 1939 on, we had the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia lined with a network of radio direction finding stations. Later on, we established some more or less secret stations along the Swedish coast with the cooperation of the Swedish military, although I’m not sure if the Swedish government ever knew what was actually going on. Using direction finding antennas, we monitored the Soviet submarine 'reporting' frequencies. The operators copied exactly what they heard and immediately relayed that information along with date, time, frequency and bearing to a central collection point (the “Filter Room” for the naval war). This data was compared and analyzed and an approximate position of the transmission was determined and then a report was sent out immediately giving the estimated time and position of the submarine which had made identifiable transmissions. It was all submarines in 1940, after we took care of the Soviet surface fleet in December 1939. The system worked very well and was aided by the fact that the Soviets never changed frequency over the entire length of the war. We had different problems on the Atlantic Convoys to the US and on the Convoys to Britain, especially after the Germans occupied most of Norway. That was pretty tense, and we had to fight the German U-boats off, and that was a different story, I can tell you that!”

A preliminary mention of the Atlantic Theatre

The elimination of the Soviet surface Navy in the Baltic was achieved early on in the Winter War, after which the main threat was from Soviet submarines. The Merivoimat had been heavily augmented in September 1939 by the surviving Polish warships and submarines which had withdrawn to Finland (or in two cases out of the Baltic completely to Norway where they joined the Merivoimat warships based out of Lyngenfjiord). Merivoimat ASW warfare in the Baltic was particularly successful, and from Spring 1940 on submarines were not a serious threat to Finnish merchant shipping carrying cargo from Finland to Germany (a trade which continued right up until April 1944 for reasons of pure economic necessity on both sides, given that after the Helsinki Convoy of Spring 1940 there was very little love lost between the two countries). However, the Atlantic was a different story. Immediately after the outbreak of the Winter War, with access through the Baltic largely cut off, Finnish imports and exports were conducted through the Norwegian ports of Narvik and the newly constructed port of Lyngenfjiord. However, Finnish merchant shipping to and from the USA, Britain and France (and anywhere else for that matter) was at risk of attack from German U-boats which were then beginning to attack merchant ships bound for Britain.

The Merivoimat was quick to react to this threat, assigning a small number of their ASW Corvettes to operate from Lyngenfjiord, escorting convoys of Finnish merchant ships. With a very limited number of warships, the defense that could be offered was limited to start with. However, the situation improved somewhat with the two Polish destroyers arriving and them some more as the Merivoimat pressed into service two Soviet destroyers captured in a relatively undamaged condition in Murmansk. Finland had also placed orders for the construction of a small number of ASW Corvettes with a US shipyard and these were delivered impressively quickly towards the end of the Winter War, although unarmed. For Finland (although not for Norway), the situation improved further still after the German invasion of Norway, when the Finns “took over” two Norwegian Sleipner-class Destroyers that had withdrawn North in the face of the German attacks – an event which had led to Finland seizing the Finnmark, although not Narvik. After the events of the Helsinki Convoy and the Battle of Bornholm, an unmitigated disaster for the Kreigsmarine, the Germans had wisely decided to let well enough alone and had not challenged the Finnish occupation of the Finnmark, although the level of tension along the demarcation line and in the Baltic was always high.

However, this applied only in northern Norway and did nothing to stop German U-boats attacking Finnish merchant shipping in the Atlantic. A number of Finnish merchant ships were lost before the Merivoimat instituted its own convoy procedures, initially protecting Finnish ships between Lyngenfjiord and Iceland. With four ASW Corvettes, two (reflagged) Polish destroyers, the two reflagged Norwegian destroyers and the two captured Soviet destroyers, the Merivoimat could offer only a minimal level of protection.

gromwieslawsierocinski.jpg

Polish Grom-class Destroyer heading for Narvik and refuge: late September 1939

This was soon enough augmented by the conversion of twenty three Norwegian whaling boats to Convoy Escorts. Large numbers of Norwegian whalers had been laid up in Narvik and the Lofoten islands as a result of the war at sea. They were fast enough, and very seaworthy with a long range. But they were small for a warship and the armament that could be fitted was limited – generally all they carried was a light gun, usually a Tampella manufactured Bofors 76mm naval gun, fitted forward of the bridge, a couple of twin-20mm’s either side on the wings above the bridge and a Bofors 40mm AA gun immediately aft the funnel. All the stern deckspace was taken up with twin depth charge launchers and depth charges. After the guns and additional equipment such as the Radars, Radios and Asdic was fitted in, there just wasn’t that much room. The crews were far larger than they were intended for and conditions were incredibly uncomfortable, especially in winter, but the men were seamen and all volunteers – many of them the Norwegians who had originally crewed the ships – and they were all keen to join the fight one way or another.

norwegianwhaler1.jpg

After reaching an agreement with the Norwegian-government-in-exile, approximately twenty three Norwegian whale-chasers that were considered large enough and suitable for the work were hastily converted by the Merivoimat to ASW escorts. With the exception of their depth charges, they were lightly armed but they were fast, maneouverable, and they served to augment the larger Destroyers and ASW Corvettes in convoy escort work.

And to protect their convoys, the Merivoimat instituted some of the same techniques they had used against the Soviets in the Baltic, setting up HF/DF stations on the Norwegian coast and in Iceland. This was helped by the more frequent radio transmissions made by the German U-boats.

A Merivoimat HF/DF operator would listen on an assigned frequency. These frequencies were listed in numbered sets called a Series. Two examples of these frequencies were 10525 and 12215 kc. U-boats would generally make brief radio transmissions at regular intervals. On hearing a U-boat transmission, the intercepting operator would press a foot pedal which activated a microphone. He would then shout a coded warning to other HF/DF equipped ships to tune the intercepted frequency. After the other escorts obtained bearings, the results would be passed to the Senior Officer (SO) of the escort group and a fix obtained where possible. If it was within an estimated 15 to 20 mile radius of the convoy, the Senior Officer would send an escort chasing down the bearing. The SO would also have a message transmitted notifying the (British) shore authorities of the U-boat's bearing or position (unofficially, the Merivoimat gave as much assistance to the British as they could – the Germans on occasion protested, but the Finns simply shrugged and said “stop torpedoing our ships and we can start talking about it” and so, nothing changed.

Ashore, Mervoimat operators would listen and search on their Nokia receivers. When a U-boat's transmission was picked up, the operator on watch would immediately warn another operator at a remote site where the actual work of taking another bearing would be performed. All Merivoimat HF/DF operators knew how to recognize German transmissions and there was no dearth of signals. When German headquarters needed to communicate with U-boats, they repeated all broadcasts at one half to one hour intervals in case the transmissions were garbled. There was no need for the U- boat to signal receipt of a message. The Germans's liberal use of radio made it possible for the Merivoimat in Lyngenfjiord to realistically make hour-to-hour tactical decisions then transmit those decisions to Convoy Escort Commanders at sea.

The Finnish convoys themselves ran on routes well away from the usual U-boat hunting grounds where they could, but this was often not possible, and the U-boats themselves made no effort to differentiate between convoys bound for the UK, or those bound for Lygnefjiord. But the story of Finland’s Atlantic Convoys is for another day…

Next Post: Verenimijä
 
“Verenimijä”

The further evolution of the Suomen Maavoimat’s “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Device – and the establishment of “Verenimijä”

In an earlier Post, we looked at the work that Tigerstedt had put in to the “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Device. You may recall that in early 1938 the Maavoimat had established an experimental Regimental Combat Group, made up of one Armoured Battalion equipped with the 45 Matilda I’s and a like number of the Skoda TNHP tanks (which had been ordered in 1936 and delivered in 1937) together with two Battalions of Jaegers. The Matilda I’s were equipped with a special turret fitted with the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin or Combat Light, a searchlight that flickered rapidly to disorient enemy soldiers. However, as more experience was gained with this device, it had become clear that some of the earlier claims were exaggerated. It had already been pointed out that the scheme for using the triangles of darkness to cover the approach of assault troops necessitated using Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin-equipped tanks for flank protection. It was found too, that the blinding effect was not as great as originally thought. Moreover, the whole device depended on the maintenance of secrecy untill it first used as it was realised that antidotes could be rapidly improvised and the value of the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin correspondingly reduced. An even more serious setback was the discovery that the use of a green sunfilter enabled an observer to see clearly the actual slot through which the light passed.

This information was communicated to Tigerstedt, and resulted in a re-think of the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin approach as it was becoming obvious that this could easily be countered. Now you may also recall that Tigerstedt had assisted the British inventor Baird in his work with his “Noctovision” apparatus – and that a considerable chunk of Tigerstedt’s own capital had been made from his company manufacturing infrared film and camera filters. Tigerstedt obviously made a connection between his earlier work on infrared technology and military applications at this time, although again there is no documentation to support this. However, it was at this stage that Tigerstedt experimented with the fitting of an infrared filter to the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin turret, creating what was for all intents and purposes an “invisible” searchlight with a constant beam. Night was turned to day – but only if you were looking through an infrared viewing device. And once more with the support of the military, this is what Tigerstedt turned his hand to designing and developing. And he did this in conjunction with his work on Radar, on the design of proximity fuses and on his experimental work on the use of radar to guide bombs to their target (something which was not achieved until towards the end of WW2 as it happened).

tigerstedt4.jpg

Tigerstedt’s Helsinki Laboratory in which he carried out much of his research.

The first practical commercial night vision device offered on the market was developed by Dr. Vladimir K. Zworykin working for the Radio Corporation of America and was intended for civilian use. It was not a success due to its size and cost but had been publicised in the March 1936 issue of Popular Science – and Tigerstedt was certainly aware of the work that had been done. In Germany, AEG had also started working on infrared devices in 1935 and again, Tigerstedt with his widespread contacts in the German scientific community was in a position to glean information on the research and work that had been done. In addition of course, there was also Baird’s Noctovision apparatus with which Tigerstedt was intimately familiar. All in all then, Tigerstedt was starting his work with a firm grasp of both the theory and the current state of the art technology in the field.

Within weeks Tigerstedt had design and built a prototype viewer for use in conjunction with the infrared searchlight. In the initial trial this was fitted in the Commander’s cupola but of course this meant the Driver was driving blind. A second unit was fitted for the driver of the Matilda but at this point the Skoda TNHP tank crew involved in the trial pointed out that to fight, they too needed viewers and it would be better if they had infrared searchlights that they could control. At this point, with the devices viability confirmed, a working group of Officers, NCO’s and men from the experimental Regimental Combat Group were brought together for what we would now term a “brainstorming session.” It was remarkably effective and after a solid week of discussions, the group made a series of recommendations to Tigerstedt. Chief among these were that the Skoda TNHP tanks be fitted with their own infrared searchlights and viewers to enable then to fight independently and effectively as tanks, while the more powerful searchlights on the Matilda’s should be used to support the Infantry units. In turn, the Infantry should themselves be equipped with infrared lights and viewers mounted on their Rifles and Machineguns, enabling them to fight effectively at night in conjunction with the tanks.

Tigerstedt buckled down to the task, designing and building infrared searchlights and viewers to be fitted and used for the Skoda TNHP tanks. From the sole prototype example remaining in the Helsinki Military Museum, we know that the early viewing devices are largely based on Dr. Vladimir K. Zworykin’s viewers as built for the Radio Corporation of America. However, Tigerstedt made numerous changes and improvements and the unit as it went into production showed significant differences. One unit was designated for use by the driver, one for the gunner and an external cupola-mounted unit for the tank commander by way of a mount installed in the commander’s hatchway. Initial range of the lights was approximately 100m (as compared to an effective range of 1km for the Matilda-mounted Infrared Searchlights).

image24du.jpg

The Commander’s Infrared Searchlight and Viewer. The 100m range was inadequate and while Tigerstedt struggled to come up with a more powerful light, operationally a Matilda I Searchlight Tank was attached to each troop of 4 Skoda TNHP tanks, extending the effectiveness of the Infrared Viewer out to almost 1km. By late 1939 a more powerful searchlight had been fitted giving a range of around 600m.

image25d.jpg

A battery stand and electric generator for the Infrared Lights and Viewers was mounted in the right rear of the crew compartment. An external armoured stowage bin was fitted to the rear of the turret to carry auxiliary equipment.

The units were easy to install and remove, taking no more than a couple of minutes and following further trials over the summer of 1938, the devices were put into production. By Spring 1939, all 45 Skoda TNHP tanks had been fitted with the devices.

06954k.jpg

The Maavoimat’s Skoda-built CKD/Praga TNHP Tank. Armed with a Bofors 37mm gun and 2 machineguns, with a Crew of 4 and a speed of 42kph, this was a capable armoured fighting vehicle for 1939. Fitted with Infrared Searchlights and Viewers and operating in conjunction with Infantry equipped with personal infrared lights and viewers attached to their rifles, it gave the Maavoimat a night-fighting capability that was hitherto unheard of. Later in WW2, Infrared Searchlights and Viewers would be fitted to almost all Maavoimat armoured fighting vehicles.

Tigerstedt turned next to the development of an active infrared device for the infantry. The system as developed consisted of a small infrared spotlight with a 5-inch deameter lamp powered with a 35 watt bulb (actually a conventional tungsten light source shining through a filter permitting only infrared light. It operated in the upper infrared (light) spectrum rather than in the lower infrared (heat) spectrum and therefore was not sensitive to body heat), one component of its active infrared system which weighed about 5lbs, fixed atop the Maavoimat’s impressive Lahti-Saloranta 7.62mm assault rifle. Below this infrared light was a viewer about 14 inches long that could detect the light emitted by the IR lamp. Since this light was invisible to anyone not equipped with a viewer system it gave a massive edge over relying on flashlights and flares for illumination. However, the soldier using the equipment did have to be looking through the Viewer to see anything. The maximum ramge was about 100 meters. The system mounted on the gun was linked by insulated wire to a heavy 13.5 kilogram (about 30 lbs.) wooden cased battery pack and simple control box that the soldier wore in place of his normal gear. A second battery was fitted inside a gas mask container to power the image converter. This was all strapped to a standard Maavoimat pack frame. Think of it as a very crude analog to today's night fighting systems – able to transform a normal soldier into one capable of fighting in complete darkness without revealing his position.

nachtjager2.jpg

Here being examined by a Polish Soldier fighting with the Maavoimat in daylight, the Maavoimat’s Infrared System for Rifles was compact and advanced, certainly in late 1939 there was nothing to equal it in use anywhere in the world and it gave the Maavoimat an unqualled night-fighting capability.

vampirz.jpg

Maavoimat soldier with an Infrared equipped Rifle. After trials and some very enthusiastic feedback, the system was designated “Kollikissa Taisteluvalaisin” (because we all know Kollikissa can see in the dark) and placed in production in early 1939.

Following trials in the last quarter of 1938, the Kollikissa unit was placed in production and a sufficient quantity to equip the two Infantry Battalions that were the Jaeger infantry component of the experimental Regimental Combat Group. These were largely delivered by mid-1939 and in a series of training exercises the Regimental Combat Group honed their night-fighting tactics. Weeks before the start of the Winter War, the Regiment was permitted to design their own unit patch and nickname.

It was a name that would terrify anyone the Maavoimat fought over the next 6 years. “Verenimijä”

Other Maavoimat units would go on to utilize the Kollikissa Taisteluvalaisin units, with Platoon-sized Night-Sniper units forming a part of almost all Maavoimat Infantry Battalions before the end of the Winter War. But it was “Verenimijä” that would conduct large scale night attacks throughout the war, often eliminating enture Soviet battalions in sudden attacks in the darkness of the night. They would become the most feared unit of the Winter War. And just the sight of their calling card, a printed unit patch, would terrify the troops facing them, who knew that death was lurking near them at any moment as darkness fell.

Next Post: The Most Heavily Armed Pigeons in the World
 
Last edited:
This is an excerpt from the book "Journey into Winter" by Alec Lynton-Cole, who was an Officer with the Third Royal Tank Regiment and serving in the HQ of the British Army’s Eleventh Armoured Division (The Black Bull’s).

The Eleventh was the British Armoured Division component of the British units that Churchill insisted be sent to fight with the Maavoimat from April 1944 (the other “British” units sent to Finland were the 15th Scottish Infantry Division, the 1st Airborne Division, the 2nd New Zealand Infantry Division, the Australian 10th (Infantry) Division, the 3rd Canadian Infantry Divison and the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade. In addition to the 2 Polish Divisions that were already a part of the Maavoimat from November 1939 on, the Polish 1st Armoured Division, 3rd Carpathian Infantry Division, the 4th Infantry Division, 5th Kresowa Infantry Division, and the Polish Independent Parachute Brigade were all sent to Finland on the insistence of the Polish Government-in-Exile. In addition the US reluctantly allocated the 13th Airborne Division and the 66th Infantry Division.

Both British and American commanders viewed the sending of a considerable number of Divisions to Finland as a diversion of strength from what they regarded as “the main effort.” However, the Polish Government-in-Exile insisted that all available units be sent to fight alongside the Finns, and the New Zealand, Australian and Canadian governments also insisted on sending Divisional strength units. Eisenhower worked around the political directives by sending his newest and most inexperienced Divisions, while the British General Staff were overruled by Churchill, who insisted on a strong British contribution. The end result was that by late 1943, the best part of 12 Allied Divisions were in Finland and being trained in winter warfare by the Maavoimat. It was an experience none of them would ever forget. By July 1945, these Divisions along with their 30 Finnish, 2 Swedish, 1 Norwegian, 2 Estonian, 1 Latvian and 1 Lithuanian Division comrades would be perhaps the most effective and lethal fighting force in the world. In 1945 they would also joined by the roughly 400,000 men of the Polish Home Army.

Anyhow, that’s more of an aside at this point. Right now, we’ll return to Alec Lynton-Cole’s account, which gives perhaps the only "outsiders" glimpse of the Maavoimat’s “Verenimijä” Regimental Combat Group ever documented.

“As I recall, it was early March 1944 and we had moved from a training ground in the forest north of Tampere down to near the Gulf of Finland, where we would embark on our landing craft for the Invasion of Estonia. We were based outside an idyllic little town by a lake and surrounded by immense pine forests that we trained in. Usually we were out on exercises all week, with the weekends off for a bit of R&R, which we usually spent in camp because only a few of us were allowed out at a time. There were around 45 Divisions positioned near the coast and it was pretty busy. We were being trained by the Finns, and it was like nothing we’d ever gone through before. I’d thought British Army training was tough but it was like playing in the park compared to what the Maavoimat had put us through over that winter. By now, we were realizing just how much we had learnt and we felt sorry for our friends back in the UK getting ready for the Invasion who hadn't benefitted from the training we'd received. We were reallu just beginning to realise we were mere "babes in the woods" at this sort of thing.

That week we were out on an exercise, practicing small unit tactics with our tanks and attached infantry. At the end of the third day we lagered up in place prepatory to the next day’s exercise, a river crossing as I recall, when one of the tank sentries reported a Finnish officer outside, who was insisting on talking to an Officer in the Divisional Headquarters. When the CO sent me out to see what it was all about, he told me his Battalion, from Regimental Battle Group “Verenimijä” (which was how the Finns fought, their Divisions were purely for logistical support and admin, the fighting was all done by Combined Arms Regimental Battle Groups, an approach which all of us attached to the Maavoimat adopted – usually “informally” and certainly without the approval for the Head Office “wallahs” back in Blighty) had been assigned to do some training with us for a few days. That was how it all began. At the time, I had no idea what “Verenimijä” meant, it was just one of those tongue-twistingly hard Finnish words that we all struggled with.

Everstiluutnantti (Lieutenant Colonel) Jukka Rothovius a short, swarthy, twinkle-eyed man, about my age, massively self-assured and no wonder. He wore the Mannerheim Cross on his rather battered-looking tankers uniform, together with half a dozen other medals. “From the Winter War fighting the Russians,” he told me when I asked later. He was certainly the opposite of impeccable, and he had no time for military bullshit, much to the annoyance of our Divisional CO who was a bit of a stickler for military etiquette. Rothovius informed me that his unit had had us under surveillance for the past few days and gave me a totally accurate report of our itinerary to prove it. With a grin, Rothovius went on to explain that his Battalion – a typically Finnish mish-mash of various types of tanks, Finnish infantry in their weird body-armour (that we would all come to envy them for), even stranger armoured infantry carriers and the wild assortment of strange-looking rifles and submachine-guns that the Finns used – was a specialist night-fighting unit using equipment so secret and so effective that it represented a new era in tank warfare.

He went on to explain that his unit was supposed to give us some night-fighting training. He’d spent the Winter War fighting the Russians, “my unit, always at night, we ruled the night,” he chuckled in his rather broken English. “Come with me, you will see why.” The CO gave me the OK, looking rather despondent as he did so. “Damned Finns,” I heard him mutter as he turned away, “always showing us up.” He was an Officer of the old school, the British Army was the best in the world in his opinion but while he muttered and grumbled, he loved his men and if there was a better way to fight that would keep his men alive whilst winning the battle, he drove his men mercilessly, regardless of who the lessons came from. So I joined Rothovius in his battered old Sisu-built Jeep (which was actually far tougher and more capable than the American Jeeps – Sisu had been building them under license but in typical Finnish fashion, they’d “improved” the design). We drove for about twenty minutes along various forest paths until we were challenged by first one sentry, and fifty yards beyond, another, and yet another; the kind of security you associate with guarding the Coca Cola formula!

We ended up in the depths of the forest, in the middle of a tank leaguer, a mix of US supplied Shermans, the Maavoimat’s Stridsvagn M/38 and the Säiliönmetsästäjä S/38, a “tank hunter” as the Finns called it. The Maavoimat’s Säiliönmetsästäjä S/38 (a tongue-twister if ever there was one) was based partially on an old pre-war Czech tank design and had been built by the Finns starting from the time of the Winter War, when they’d used the small number that they had at that time very effectively against the Russians. Since then everything about it had been improved. The engine was bigger, more reliable and more powerful. The armour was thicker and stronger and the gun was a high velocity Bofors 76mm with an armour-piercing shell that would prove to be as affective as the German 88mm. It was certainly an order of magnitude better than the 75mm our Sherman’s were fitted with.

silinmetsstj1.jpg

Maavoimat Säiliönmetsästäjä S/38

In fact, as we found out later, the Finns were working round the clock to replace the 75mm guns in the Sherman’s that the Americans supplied them with with their own Bofors 76mm. Rothovius men were busy welding additional armour onto the Shermans at the time we drove in to his leaguer. “No such thing as too much armour,” he commented when I asked. “Besides, we have a few old German 88mm guns and we’ve tested them on the Shermans. Opens them up like a can of sardines. Don’t want that to happen to my men.” He smiled - or at least his mouth did, his eyes never changed. “You should have seen what they did to the Russian tanks back when we were fighting them.” After I got back and sat down with the CO, we put everyone to work doing the same thing, welding every scrap of armour we could lay our hands on to the Shermans. “The Finns have a lot more experience with this sort of thing than we do,” the CO commented somewhat unhappily as he watched. “Wonder what else we should know that they haven’t thought to tell us.”

Everyone in Rothovius’ unit looked alarmingly tough and competent, if scruffy. But that was something we’d long noticed about the Finns. On the surface, they looked scruffy, they never saluted, they called their officers and NCO’s by their first names and they seemed to do things by some kind of unspoken consensus. A gesture, a nod, a few laconic words was all it seemed to take. But they worked as a team, they were fit and tough, their tactical skills were startlingly good and the accuracy of their shooting under any conditions had to be seen to be believed. We were soon to learn that their night-fighting skills were fearsome. I sat down with Rothovius and we planned out a series of night fighting exercises over that evening. Later, after eating, Rothovius offered to take me out on a short exercise one of his Task Force’s was carrying out. “Just night driving practice,” he said, straight-faced.

We jumped into his Jeep in the pitch dark of the night and then waited for five minutes as the tank and infantry carrier vehicles rumbled and coughed and snorted into life. I somewhat absently wondered what the large black box mounted above the steering wheel was - it hadn't been there earlier when we'd driven to Rothovius' camp. And then, after a short burst of radio commands, we drove off, Rothovius at the wheel and the 76mm gun of a Stridsvagn M/38 literally ten feet behind us, the closest I have ever been to the business end of a gun barrel in motion. Don’t let anyone tell you any different - it was scary. The entire convoy was on it’s way, somehow in that five minutes the whole company had loaded into their vehicles and moved off without more than a few words being spoken. There must have been about twenty of the Stridsvagn M/38’s and perhaps thirty half-tracks and the tracked Finnish infantry carriers that we were now familiar with, and the whole lot came thundering into the Division’s leaguer in the middle of the night before forming themselves up in a field nearby with a solid ring of guard positions around them. The night had been pitch black, I had barely seen the windscreen, let alone the road and I was rather more than curious as to just how Rothovius and his tanks, half tracks and infantry carriers had rocketed through the forest without any visible lights and at speed.

Rothovius grinned. “Come for another drive,” he said, his tone rather as if he was throwing a single fish to a seal. It was a moonless night, and I was once again heading out into the countryside. Rothovius was at the wheel and my fellow officer Teddy and I were in the back of that Jeep. First Rothovius drove at a speed which dimmed-out headlights allowed. Then he switched them off and really hit the accelerator. It was so dark a night that we could barely see him in the front seat, and while he had not given the impression of being nuts, I guess you do not have to be Japanese to go kamikaze. Before we could think of some way of saving ourselves, Rothovius just as abruptly slowed down, stopped, and suggested that Teddy take the wheel and watch the road through a screen on the side of that strange box in front of the driver. Teddy did, said, 'well, I'll be damned' and proceeded to go even faster than Rothovius, to my terror. Teddy was NOT a good driver in broad daylight!

Then it was my turn, and there it was: if you looked through a rectangular screen on the box, maybe six-inches-by-four, the entire road ahead was clearly visible in a pale greenish light for perhaps fifty yards or more. That was it - the 'black searchlight,' as some garbled press reports called it many years later. Rothovius told us that every tank and vehicle in his unit was fitted with it, that the tank beam was considerably longer and had enabled them to mount numerous successful night attacks against Russian armor. I have no idea how it worked, and Rothovius never told us; the fact was that, if you threw a switch, you got that beam, which was totally invisible unless you looked through the screen. So we drove right back to the mess and had a few drinks while Rothovius explained that they would be using this special night viewing equipment to fight the Germans (and us in exercises). We learnt a lot about night-fighting techniques over the next week, although we never got to use that special Finnish equipment and I never did find out much more about it.

Although in the months ahead, I did run into Rothovius’ unit again and I learnt a bit more about the Maavoimat’s “Verenimijä” Regimental Combat Group and how they operated from supporting then a few times. They were tough men alright, going out at night in their strange body armour and camouflage and attacking the Germans with a ruthless and efficient ferocity that made them the terror of the night. They scared my men, I shudder to think what the Germans thought of them. Anyhow, after we reached Berlin, I never saw any of them again nor heard anything about their night-vision gadgets, until sometime in the 1960s, when there were press reports about night-fighting equipment of extraordinary efficacy, which British and American tanks had been using in Korea, and of which the prototype was a Finnish World War II development."
 
Last edited:
Finnish terms

About your finnish terms. Finland has never used word säiliö meaning tank(direct translation) From beginning we took our direction from germans and their word panzer. So finnish word for tank is panssarivaunu (literally armorwagon). It's common when spoken just say panssari like germans say panzer. You could use term panssarinmetsästäjä as translated from tank destroyer, it's not bad finnish and this is atl, but it would probably not been term used. Metsästäjä means hunter, but destroyers translation is hävittäjä or tuhoaja which are synonyms. From these terms tuhoaja would propably be chosen because word hävittäjä is used as term describing naval destroyers. So it would be panssarintuhoaja. There is also another choice. In otl Finland received assault guns from Germany in 1944 and term chosen was fairly direct translation.That is rynnäkkötykki (literally chargegun). Word rynnäkkö was probably chosen instead of hyökkäys (assault) because rynnäkkö sounds much cooler and martial in finnish ( more rs' ). For same reason assault rifle is rynnäkkökivääri for finns. There is only small decree of difference between fixed gun tank destroyer and assault gun . Maybe term rynnäkkövaunu (chargewagon) would be used in this timeline. But it is atl and naming would not go similar paths. However tank would be panssarivaunu because it was chosen when first tanks came Finland in 20s and Germany was in strong position in Finland's military. If you use word panssarintuhoaja in spoken language it would quickly be shortened word tuhoaja for convenience.
Lastly a nitpick. I don't usually like to nitpick Finlans wanks but 30 finnish divisions is really out there. At most we had about 12 divisions plus some brigades ww2 and that was scaled down towards the end of war. 30 RCTs would be more realistic and even that would be a lot. Incidentally about 30 brigades was our army's size at it's peak in 80s.
 
About your finnish terms. Finland has never used word säiliö meaning tank(direct translation) From beginning we took our direction from germans and their word panzer. So finnish word for tank is panssarivaunu (literally armorwagon). It's common when spoken just say panssari like germans say panzer. You could use term panssarinmetsästäjä as translated from tank destroyer, it's not bad finnish and this is atl, but it would probably not been term used. Metsästäjä means hunter, but destroyers translation is hävittäjä or tuhoaja which are synonyms. From these terms tuhoaja would propably be chosen because word hävittäjä is used as term describing naval destroyers. So it would be panssarintuhoaja. There is also another choice. In otl Finland received assault guns from Germany in 1944 and term chosen was fairly direct translation.That is rynnäkkötykki (literally chargegun). Word rynnäkkö was probably chosen instead of hyökkäys (assault) because rynnäkkö sounds much cooler and martial in finnish ( more rs' ). For same reason assault rifle is rynnäkkökivääri for finns. There is only small decree of difference between fixed gun tank destroyer and assault gun . Maybe term rynnäkkövaunu (chargewagon) would be used in this timeline. But it is atl and naming would not go similar paths. However tank would be panssarivaunu because it was chosen when first tanks came Finland in 20s and Germany was in strong position in Finland's military. If you use word panssarintuhoaja in spoken language it would quickly be shortened word tuhoaja for convenience.

Lastly a nitpick. I don't usually like to nitpick Finlans wanks but 30 finnish divisions is really out there. At most we had about 12 divisions plus some brigades ww2 and that was scaled down towards the end of war. 30 RCTs would be more realistic and even that would be a lot. Incidentally about 30 brigades was our army's size at it's peak in 80s.

Hey, thx Mikael.

Those comments on the Finnish are really helpful. I think I came up with that name quite a while ago and never took another look at it. I'll use Panssarivaunu for tanks going forward. I used "Metsästäjä" for that particular model because I wanted to convey a more aggressive mindset in armoured warfare and "hunter" was a bit more go-get-em than "destroyer", which is more defensive. I'm really looking for a name that will convey an agressive mind-set right from the outset. Similarly to an "anti-tank gun" - I would rather use a phrase that translates as "tank-killer gun". Much more postive, as in "we go out and kill them" rather than sitting around defending something.

What about using "Hyökkäysvaunu" or maybe also "Taisteluvaunu" (from Taistelupanssarivaunu Panzer-Kampf-Wagen). "Hyökkäysvaunu" seems tohave the right feelfor what I'm looking for. As far as "Rynnäkkövaunu" (chargewagon) goes, perhaps use this as the name for an armored infantry carrier? I have one of those in the works, so if that's a better word to use, I'll hold on to that one.

Yeah, you're right about 30 Finnish divisions being to many. I think I was winging it a bit there. Keep in mind that there are actually more Divisions and RCT's due to increased use of Lotta's and teenagers under 18 in rear-area and support positions. Whatever I put in is just a stab at this stage until I get to working thru the whole Maavoimat man/woman-power and unit strengths. Which I will do in as much detail as everything else here. So for now, I'll leave it as written but we can all assume that it's inaccurate and will change going forward.

Kiitos............Nigel
 
Last edited:
Ok, this Post is more of a heads up and request - in a couple of minutes I am going to copy a couple of posts across from the axishistory forum I also post this Finland What If on. Basically, it is an initial unit structure for Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä” along with a couple of subsequent posts.

What I am looking for is an analysis of the unit structure and suggestions as to how to modify it to make it realistic and effective within the context of the period (1938/1939) and the overall ATL scenario.

Thx in advance for taking a look and commenting. And feel free to rip the shit out of this if needed :eek:
 
Unit Organisation: Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä”

(Note that I've pulled a fair bit of this from the unit organisations on Jarkko's www.jaergerplatoon.net site and modified them as I thought appropriate. Love to hear any suggestions / corrections / comments / improvements). Some of the unit strengths are a WAG, I have no idea what the strength of a Regimental Field Post Office or Field Laundry unit actually was. But if you know, and anyone has any more detailed breakdowns, I'd love to add that sort of detail in )

As per Organisation tables, Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä” had an an overall strength of 3599 men. The unit was organized to be relatively mobile and self-sufficient, with the stated objective being to move the unit around for specific missions. “Verenimijä” was established as a pure night-fighting unit, with an emphasis on combined arms operations, hence it included sizable armour and artillery units who trained extensively together. The unit was also rather more extensively mechanized than most Finnish infantry units, and in addition there were sizable quantities of the specialixed infrared night-fighting equipment.

“Verenimijä” specialized in Regimental-sized night attacks and the men were highly-trained in this particular aspect of fighting, which included extensive close-quarter night-fighting combat training. They were equipped with a higher than normal proportion of automatic weapons as a result.

(and apologies for the layout below, I will be editing to tidy this up sometimes this weekend)

Regimental HQ (500 men)
o HQ (25 Officers, NCO’s and Men)
o Security Platoon (32 men)
o Viestikomppania (Signals Company – 129 men)
o Reconaissance Company (identical organizationally to an Infantry Company – 112 men)

o Pioneerikomppania (Engineer Company – 144 men)
- Company HQ (16 men)
 Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, 2IC, 2 Sgts, 5 Sigs/Messengers, Measuring Man, Driver, Orderly, 4 man Security Ryhmä)

3 x Pioneerijoukkue (Engineer Platoons – each 34 men)
 Joukkue Command Squad (1 Officer, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Messengers, 1 Medic)

 Pioneeriryhmä I (Engineer Squad I) (Corporal – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader, 7 Men)
 Pioneeriryhmä II (8 men, as above)
 Pioneeriryhmä III (8 men, as above)

 Explosives vehicle: 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
 Tools vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
 Food/animal feedstuff vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
 Backpack and tent vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)

- 1 x Supplies Platoon (26 men)
 Joukkue Command Squad (Company Sergeant-Major, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Clerks, 1 Messenger)

 Equipment Ryhmä I (Equipment Squad I – 11 men)
 NCO – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader
 Blacksmith & Field-smith vehicle (or Mechanic)
 Anti-chemical weapons vehicle, 3 men (horse & cart/sledge)
 2 tools vehicles, 2 men (horses & carts/sledges)
 2 building material vehicles, 2 men (horses & carts/sledges)
 Explosives truck, 2 men (2 - 3 ton truck)

 Supplies Ryhmä II (9 men)
 Supplies NCO
 Shoemaker
 Food Provisions (1) and Cooks (2)
 Field Kitchen, 1 man
 Kitchen vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge)
 Food and animal feedstuff vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge)
 Backpack and tent vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)

- 1 x Reserve Tankkikomppania (15 Tanks, 58 men)
 Tank Company HQ Joukku (Platoon, 12 men)
 3 Matilda Tanks (6 men)
 1 Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)

 3 x Tankkijoukku (3 x Tank Platoons – 24 men in total)
 4 Matilda Tanks in each Platoon (8 men)

 Maintenance & Repair Joukku (12 men)
 2 Repair Shop Trucks (1 NCO, 7 men)
 2 Recovery Tractors (1 NCO, 3 men)

 Supplies Joukku (10 men)
 1 NCO, 1 Sigs
 1 x Kitchen Truck, 1 man, 1 Cook
 2 x Ammunition Trucks, 2 men
 2 x Fuel Trucks, 2 men
 1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
 1 x Supplies Truck, 1 man

o Yöjääkäripataljoona I and II (Night-Jaeger Battalion I and II – 692 men, 15 Matilda Tanks fitted with Infrared-filtered Searchlights)
- Battalion HQ (185 men)
 Battalion Headquarters (5 Officers, 20 men)
 Security Platoon (32 men)
 Signals Platoon (47 men)
 Reconaissance Platoon (32 men)
 Mortar Platoon (4 x 81mm Mortars, 49 men)

- 3 x Yöjääkärikomppania (Night-Jaeger Infantry Companies) (all personnel equipped with Infrared-fitted weapons) – each 112 men

 Company HQ (20 men)
 Company Commander
 Command Squad (6 man Sigs/Messenger Section, 4 man Sniper Section, 9 man AT Section)

 3 x Yöjääkärijoukkue I (Night-Jaeger Platoon – 32 men)
 Joukkue Command Squad (1 Officer, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Messengers, 1 Medic, 2 man Night-Sniper Team)
 Jääkäriryhmä I (Jaeger Squad I) (Corporal – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader, 2 man LMG Team, 2 SMG Men, 3 Riflemen)
 Jääkäriryhmä II (8 men, as above)
 Jääkäriryhmä III (8 men, as above)

 Yöjääkärijoukkue II (Night-Jaeger Platoon – 32 men)
 Yöjääkärijoukkue III (Night-Jaeger Platoon – 32 men)

- 1 x Attached Tankkikomppania (15 Tanks, 58 men)
 Tank Company HQ Joukku (Platoon, 12 men)
 3 Matilda Tanks (6 men)
 1 Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)

 3 x Tankkijoukku (3 x Tank Platoons – 24 men in total)
 4 Matilda Tanks in each Platoon (8 men)
 Maintenance & Repair Joukku (12 men)
 2 Repair Shop Trucks (1 NCO, 7 men)
 2 Recovery Tractors (1 NCO, 3 men)

 Supplies Joukku (10 men)
 1 NCO, 1 Sigs
 1 x Kitchen Truck, 1 man, 1 Cook
 2 x Ammunition Trucks, 2 men
 2 x Fuel Trucks, 2 men
 1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
 1 x Supplies Truck, 1 man

- Logistics Company (113 men)
 Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, CSM, 2 Sgts, 4 Sigs/Messengers, 2 x Drivers, 4 man Security Ryhmä)

 Ammunition Supplies Platoon (27 men)
 NCO, 1 Sigs, 1 Clerk
 2 x Gunsmiths, 2 x Infrared Equipment Specialists, 1 Workshop Truck
 12 Men, 8 Drivers, 8 Trucks

 General Supplies Platoon (26 men)

 Medical Platoon (36 men/women)
 HQ (1 NCO, 2 Clerks, 1 Sigs, 2 Morgue Attendants)
 Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
 Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
 Stablisation Ryhmä: 1 x Medic Sgt, 5 Medics
 Evacuation Ryhmä: 4 Ambulance Trucks, 4 Drivers, 4 Medics
 1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
 1 x Medical Supplies Truck, 1 man
 Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 1 man + 1 Cook

 Battalion Admin Section (10 men)
 CO (also Training Officer)
 Chaplain
 8 men

o Armoured Battalion (Panssaripataljoona, 45 Skoda-built CKD/Praga TNHP Tanks armed with a Bofors 37mm Gun, 2 x machineguns and Infrared Searchlights and Viewers, 400 men )

- Panssaripataljoona HQ (133 men)
 HQ (5 Officers, 19 men)
 Security Platoon (32 men)
 Signals Platoon (47 men)
 AA Gun Platoon (4 x Patria Bofors 40mm Self-Propelled AA Guns, 34 men)
 4 x Patria Anti II AA-tanks (20 men)
 1 x Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)
 2 x Ammunition Trucks (4 men)
 2 x Fuel Trucks (4 men)

- 3 x Tankkikomppania (15 Tanks and 60 men per Company)
 Tank Company HQ Joukku (Platoon, 12 men)
 3 TNHP Tanks (6 men)
 1 Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)
 3 x Tankkijoukku (3 x Tank Platoons – 48 men in total)
 4 TNHP Tanks in each Platoon (16 men)

- Logistics Company (88 men)
 Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, 1 Sgt, 1 Sigs, 2 Clerks, 2 x Drivers)
 Maintenance & Repair Joukku (28 men)
 4 Repair Shop Trucks (2 NCOs, 14 men)
 4 x Gunsmiths, 4 x Infrared Equipment Specialists, 4 Workshop Trucks
 2 Radio Repair Technicians
 2 Armoured Recovery Tractors (1 NCO, 3 men)
 Supplies Joukku (33 men)
 1 NCO, 1 Sigs, 1 Clerk
 4 x Kitchen Trucks, 4 men, 8 Cooks
 4 x Ammunition Trucks, 8 men
 4 x Fuel Trucks, 8 men
 1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
 1 x Supplies Truck, 1 man
 Medical Joukku (20 men/women)
 HQ (1 NCO, 1 Clerk, 1 Sig, 1 Morgue Attendant)
 Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
 Stablisation Ryhmä: 1 x Medic Sgt, 3 Medics
 Evacuation Ryhmä: 2 Ambulance Trucks, 2 Drivers, 2 Medics
 1 x Backpack, Tent & Medical Supplies Truck, 1 man
 Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 1 man + 1 Cook

• Integral Heavy Weapons Units (963 men)
o 1 x Motorised Artillery Battalion (12 x 105mm Howitzers) – 512 men
o Anti-Aircraft Battalion (4 x Patria Self Propelled Bofors 40mm AA Guns, 8 x Hispano-Suiza twin-barrelled 20mm AA Guns, 258 men)
o Heavy Mortar Company (12 x 120mm Mortars, 193 men)
- HQ Joukku (20 men)
- 3 Mortar Joukku, each 4 x 120mm Mortars/49 men
- Supplies Joukku (26 men)
-
• Regimental Supply Company (352 men/women)

o Regimental Admin Section (10 men)
 CO, NCO, 8 men

o Transport Platoon (113 men)
- Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, CSM, 2 Sgts, 4 Sigs/Messengers, 2 x Drivers, 4 man Security Ryhmä)
- 40 Trucks, 80 Drivers
- 2 Workshop Trucks, 4 Mechanics

o Ammunition Supplies Platoon (43 men)
- 4 NCO, 1 Sigs, 2 Clerks
- 2 x Gunsmiths, 2 x Infrared Equipment Specialists, 1 Workshop Truck
- 16 Men, 16 Drivers, 16 Trucks

o Fuel Supply Company (22 men)
- 2 NCOs, 2 Sigs, 2 Clerks
- 8 Men, 8 Drivers, 8 Trucks

o General Supplies Platoon (26 men)

o Field Kitchen Platoon (26 men)

o Field Hospital Unit (112 men/women)
 Admin (2 NCOs, 2 Clerks, 2 Sigs, 2 Morgue Attendants)
 4 medical officers, 4 general surgeons
 4 Surgical Assistants, 24 Nurses,
 40 Medics
 Evacuation Ryhmä: 4 Ambulance Trucks, 4 Drivers, 4 Medics
 8 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 8 men
 4 x Medical Supplies Truck, 4 men
 Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 2 man + 4 Cooks

o Field Post Office (32 men)
o Clothing Depot (50 men)
o Field Laundry (50 men)
 
Cooied from axishistory forum
by JTV on Today, 01:14

Well, couple of ideas: Instead of Regimental Combat Group this seems like overgrow Brigade with supporting elements of very strong division placed in a small regiment. If one wants to keep the regimental/division system instead of going to brigade system it would make a whole more sense to combine the tanks, engineer battalion, aa-artillery and field artillery at division level, not at regiment level. The reason is that regiments equipped in this way are not really regiments anymore because they are too large and heavy - and designed to independently as brigades. Also the basic concept of tank use is concentrate them as large units - not spread them all over the place. Also, why create a special separate units equipped with night vision, when one can simply equip parts of existing units with them and use the particular units 24/7 when ever needed - when more equipment is manufactured this also allows easily equipping other parts of those units without demanding drastic changes. This regimental battle group seems to be very light on infantry (too light?) while it has so much support assets that commanding them from normal regimental HQ would be practically impossible, no matter how good the signal equipment is. I am also doubtful if the repair capacity for so many armoured vehicles would be anywhere close to adequate. Just having proper number of 81-mm mortars in battalion level and 120-mm mortars in regimental level would be good improvement for firepower.

Personally I would have started with a division and placed the supporting elements into it, added some more capacity for the division HQ and whole lot more supplies (fuel, ammunition etc) and repair units to the mix. Other possibility would be go to brigade system and attach some of the elements (heavy aa, tanks...) to it on case to case bases while creating temporary battle groups.

Also, let's just say I am not so sure if Generation 1 night-vision would have been the thing to help most.

Jarkko
 
Thx Jarkko, that was exactlly the sort of analysis I was looking for.

JTV wrote: Well, couple of ideas: Instead of Regimental Combat Group this seems like overgrown Brigade with supporting elements of very strong division placed in a small regiment. If one wants to keep the regimental/division system instead of going to brigade system it would make a whole more sense to combine the tanks, engineer battalion, aa-artillery and field artillery at division level, not at regiment level. The reason is that regiments equipped in this way are not really regiments anymore because they are too large and heavy - and designed to independently as brigades. Jarkko

The concept was basically a Brigade-sized combined-arms force able to operate independently of other units. In this case heavy on tanks (the Matilda tanks integrated into the Jaeger battalions are Searchlight tanks with only a machinegun - there to light up the battlefield but unable to provide anything other than machinegun fire). The Skoda tanks are the true armoured component, basically to be used to lead any night attacks on Russian armoured formations or similar. What I was really trying to do was build a Brigade-sized combined arms team.

JTV wrote: Also the basic concept of tank use is concentrate them as large units - not spread them all over the place.

In this case (the exception to the rule of large scale concentration), the tanks crews are trained as specialist night fighters with the first generation equipment. Primitive, difficult to used, high level of specialist training to use it effectively. Perhaps somewhat expensive to manufacture and with the actual combat effectiveness unproven. Also, the Matilda tanks are pretty ineffective as tanks, and the Skoda tanks are the early version - even in my ATL scenario, Finland is not going to have many tanks - so, relatively speaking, this is a concentration of force of sorts. They might in fact be combined with other tank units, say by initiating and leading a mass attack.

JTV wrote: Also, why create a special separate units equipped with night vision, when one can simply equip parts of existing units with them and use the particular units 24/7 when ever needed - when more equipment is manufactured this also allows easily equipping other parts of those units without demanding drastic changes.

The idea is that the equipment is limited, unproven and serious training is needed in its used. Basically a specialist night-fighting unit that is moved around, probably mainly on the Isthmus, to terrify and harass the Russians at night when most units are relatively ineffective. In the Winter War at least, anyway. If the usefulness and effectiveness of the equipment is proven in use, it could then be rolled out as you say. Seemed to me that this sort of innovation really needed a sizable trial unit to prove its effectiveness. I got the idea from the units equipped with the flickering strobe searchlights that the British Army actually did set up in WW2 for exactly this reason - it needed considerable training for the infantry and armour to work effectively together at night while using the equipment. But yes, if it proved itself, it could be rolled out widely and then the usefulness of this specialist unit would disappear unless they found themselves an even more specialist niche.

JTV wrote: This regimental battle group seems to be very light on infantry (too light?) while it has so much support assets that commanding them from normal regimental HQ would be practically impossible, no matter how good the signal equipment is.

I was trying to keep the overall size down to a Brigade more or less. Being an experimental unit there would not be a huge commitment of personnel. The view would be as you say, that conventional units available 24/7 would be more useful and this would be a dissipation of assets. Also, I had included the additional artillery /mortar units as these would have been trained to work closely with the infantry and armour in the sort of attacks these guys would specialise in. They could also call on any nearby artillery and mortar from other units they are passing through for their attacks. The idea being to absolutely hammer anything they come up against or that counter attacks them.

But generally speaking, it sounds like I should bulk up the infantry (another Battalion?) and reduce the overall support assets. Also, increase the size of the Regimental HQ (not forgetting this is a completely non-standard unit thats designed to be able to move around freely and more or less support itself).

JTV wrote: I am also doubtful if the repair capacity for so many armoured vehicles would be anywhere close to adequate. Just having proper number of 81-mm mortars in battalion level and 120-mm mortars in regimental level would be good improvement for firepower.

OK, now there I was having problems trying to figure out adequate engineering support capacity. Anything specific. I did not want to go to a British or American support model, thats the opposite of lean and mean. I will go back and take another look at later Finnish armoured division structure as well as German repair capacity.

As far as mortars, I will take another look at those strengths. Looking ahead, the Maavoimat has a lot more Mortar assets in this scenario overall. One of the first steps that will be taken ATL in the early 1930s, as we will see when we get to looking at the Maavoimat is lots more 81mm and 120mm mortars. Cheap compared to artillery, easy to build and effective against massed russian infantry attacks. So looking ahead, every Finnish unit will be a lot better equipped with mortars.

JTV wrote: Personally I would have started with a division and placed the supporting elements into it, added some more capacity for the division HQ and whole lot more supplies (fuel, ammunition etc) and repair units to the mix. Other possibility would be go to brigade system and attach some of the elements (heavy aa, tanks...) to it on case to case bases while creating temporary battle groups.

Well, I was more or less trying to go for a Brigade system, just calling it a Regimental Combat Group but in this case due to the specialised nature of the unit, making it a more or less permanent setup with the attachments and sizing the support elements to support that on a permanent basis. At the same time, the Brigade system would take awhile to evolve so one assumes some imperfections at the start that would be hammered out in an actual war. There is also the whole question of the cost of fitting out a Division with experimental equipment. In this case its 90 tanks and 2 small battalions of infantry, which is nor prohibitive as an experimental move. Also allows tactics to be developed and tried out.

Keep in mind Finland was not really expecting to fight a war with the USSR - even in this scenario with all the additional defence spending, it is a precaution rather than an expectation. So things would still move slowly up until late 1938. Post Munich, Finland takes a few more precautions that original timeline, but still does not expect the USSR to actually attack them up until Sept 1939. So while the impetus is there to try out the night fighting gear, equipping a full Division with experimental equipment would be likely not looked upon favorably. But an experimental Regiment (Brigade), now thats another story - and if it does not prove itself, it can always be used as a conventional Regiment and the additional assets reallocated. (that was my thinking as to the way the unit was thought of).

JTV wrote: Also, let's just say I am not so sure if Generation 1 night-vision would have been the thing to help most.

Well, in the greater scheme of things there will be a lot of other bits and pieces coming along that will help more. Like Artillery, mortars, and anti-tank guns and mines. And a few tanks. And heavily armed pigeons

But hey, this was exactly what I was looking for. Thx a million

Cheers.............Nigel
 
Finnish terms

I have been thinking how naming armored vehicles would go in this atl. Naming infantry carrier as rynnäkkövaunu (charge wagon) is quite possible. However, more probable is that as sort of sub-type of tank name would be rynnäkköpanssarivaunu (charge armor wagon). In spoken language and most of written this would be quickly shortened to rynnäkköpanssari. In fact even
if official choice is rynnäkkövaunu, rynnäkköpanssari would be choice of everyday use because it sounds much better. As what comes to tank destroyer, there is really one choice. In Finnish there is wide use in military for term torjunta ( interception). For instance anti-tank is panssarintorjunta (armor interception) and anti-air is ilmatorjunta (air interception). So anti-tank gun panssarintorjuntatykki, anti-tank platoon is panssarintorjuntajoukkue and so on. Exception is anti-tank mine which is just panssarimiina. Tank destroyer would be panssarintorjuntavaunu because you cannot put two panssari-words together. Again, everyday use word would probably be torjuntapanssari for its martial sound. I don't like word hyökkäysvaunu (assault wagon) be used because from beginning it was sort of unofficial alternate term for panssarivaunu used by some civilians and later expanded to mean practically all armored vehicles to uninformed civilians. Taisteluvaunu (battle wagon) is very general term that could very well been alternate term to panssarivaunu but this is atl so who knows.
Another language point: If and when you write RPGs and recoilless rifles Finnish word used for both is sinko. Shoulder launched is kevyt (light) sinko and crew served is raskas (heavy) sinko.
 
seems to me Finland WAS about as well prepared as a small and poor Country could have been.

Not really. Not enough Rifles and SMGs, ammunition shortages, no real modern field artillery (and very little ammunition for the guns they did have), very few anti-tank and AA guns. The Ilmavoimat emphasised the wrong aircraft (Blenheim bombers) and very few fighter aircraft - and the Fokker D.XXIs they did have were not the best. A number of potential fighter aircraft purchases were halted or slowed because of financial concerns. The Navy put a huge amount of money iinto two battleships - and lacked any other ships to support them. They would have been a lot better off with more and smaller ships - especially submarines.

This ATL aside (I have gone totally to the other extreme) there is a good case to be made that with some rather limited changes to correct the issues above, the Finns could have held the USSR off or at least made the cost so intolerably high that even Stalin might have backed down in the end.
 
I have been thinking how naming armored vehicles would go in this atl. Naming infantry carrier as rynnäkkövaunu (charge wagon) is quite possible. However, more probable is that as sort of sub-type of tank name would be rynnäkköpanssarivaunu (charge armor wagon). In spoken language and most of written this would be quickly shortened to rynnäkköpanssari. In fact even if official choice is rynnäkkövaunu, rynnäkköpanssari would be choice of everyday use because it sounds much better. As what comes to tank destroyer, there is really one choice. In Finnish there is wide use in military for term torjunta ( interception). For instance anti-tank is panssarintorjunta (armor interception) and anti-air is ilmatorjunta (air interception). So anti-tank gun panssarintorjuntatykki, anti-tank platoon is panssarintorjuntajoukkue and so on. Exception is anti-tank mine which is just panssarimiina. Tank destroyer would be panssarintorjuntavaunu because you cannot put two panssari-words together. Again, everyday use word would probably be torjuntapanssari for its martial sound. I don't like word hyökkäysvaunu (assault wagon) be used because from beginning it was sort of unofficial alternate term for panssarivaunu used by some civilians and later expanded to mean practically all armored vehicles to uninformed civilians. Taisteluvaunu (battle wagon) is very general term that could very well been alternate term to panssarivaunu but this is atl so who knows..

Thx Mikhael, been a bit of a discussion on this on the axishistory thread as well. A couple of the comments are summarised below.

JTV wrote:
- Tank = Hyökkäysvaunu (true WW2 era terminology) / Panssarivaunu (post-war term that have replaced it).

AFAIK hyökkäysvaunu was a early (Winter War?) era term, and panssarivaunu replaced it during the Continuation War.

JTV wrote:
- Rynnäkkö(panssari)vaunu = IFV (infantry fighting vehicle), like CV-9030 or BMP-2.
- Miehistönkuljetusvaunu = APC (armoured personnel carrier), like Sisu XA-180 or BTR-60PB
- Rynnäkkötykki = assault gun, like Stug IIIg
- Tanketti = tankette

AFAIK the Finnish term panssarivaunu means an armored tracked vehicle.
-Taistelupanssarivaunu - MBT (Main Battle Tank) , like Leopard
-Rynnäkköpanssarivaunu - IFV (infantry fighting vehicle), like CV-9030
-Kuljetuspanssarivaunu - APC (armoured personnel carrier), like M-113
- Rynnäkkötykki - assault gun
-Telatykki - Self propelled gun

Regards, Juha
*************************
Juha Tompuri wrote:
JTV wrote:
- Tank = Hyökkäysvaunu (true WW2 era terminology) / Panssarivaunu (post-war term that have replaced it).
AFAIK hyökkäysvaunu was a early (Winter War?) era term, and panssarivaunu replaced it during the Continuation War.


I checked some of the Continuation War Tank Battalion/Tank Brigade documents about this and you seem to be right. Hyökkäysvaunu still appears in some of them, but panssarivaunu seems already have been much more commonly used term at that time.

Taistelupanssarivaunu is way post-war term and it is worth noting that it does not just refer to a tank, but to specific modern type of tank (MBT = main battle tank).

Continuation War era documents often refer Stu 40G as rynnäkkötykkivaunu instead of calling it simply it simply rynnäkkötykki. In addition when it comes to type of BT-42, it seems to have been often referred simply as Christie-vaunu instead of calling it assault gun or self propelled gun. Finnish BT-43 prototype was in period documents usually referred as kuljetusvaunu.

When it comes to self-propelled guns there are actually two terms in use depending the type of self-propelled artillery:
- 2S5 "Giatsint-S" (Finnish Army 152 TelaK 91) is referred as telakanuuna (literally "cannon on tracks")
- 2S1 "Grozdika" (Finnish Army 122 PsH 74) is referred as panssarihaupitsi ("armour/tank howitzer")

Jarkko
*************************

The naming questions are a bit more complex than I thought :)

Kiitos............Nigel
 
Updated version of the writeup on “Verenimijä” with a bit more detail

The further evolution of the Suomen Maavoimat’s “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Device – and the establishment of “Verenimijä”

In an earlier Post, we looked at the work that Tigerstedt had put in to the “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Device. You may recall that in early 1938 the Maavoimat had established an experimental Regimental Combat Group, made up of one Armoured Battalion equipped with the 45 Matilda I’s and a like number of the Skoda TNHP tanks (which had been ordered in 1936 and delivered in 1937). The Matilda I’s were equipped with a special turret fitted with the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin or Combat Light, a searchlight that flickered rapidly to disorient enemy soldiers. However, as more experience was gained with this device, it had become clear that some of the earlier claims were exaggerated. It had already been pointed out that the scheme for using the triangles of darkness to cover the approach of assault troops necessitated using Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin-equipped tanks for flank protection. It was found too, that the blinding effect was not as great as originally thought. Moreover, the whole device depended on the maintenance of secrecy untill it first used as it was realised that antidotes could be rapidly improvised and the value of the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin correspondingly reduced. An even more serious setback was the discovery that the use of a green sunfilter enabled an observer to see clearly the actual slot through which the light passed.

This information was communicated to Tigerstedt, and resulted in a re-think of the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin approach as it was becoming obvious that this could easily be countered. Now you may also recall that Tigerstedt had assisted the British inventor Baird in his work with his “Noctovision” apparatus – and that a considerable chunk of Tigerstedt’s own capital had been made from his company manufacturing infrared film and camera filters. Tigerstedt obviously made a connection between his earlier work on infrared technology and military applications at this time, although again there is no documentation to support this. However, it was at this stage that Tigerstedt experimented with the fitting of an infrared filter to the Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin turret, creating what was for all intents and purposes an “invisible” searchlight with a constant beam. Night was turned to day – but only if you were looking through a passive infrared viewing device. And once more with the support of the military, this is what Tigerstedt turned his hand to designing and developing. And he did this in conjunction with his work on Radar, on the design of proximity fuses and on his experimental work on the use of radar to guide bombs to their target (something which was not achieved until towards the end of WW2 as it happened).

tigerstedt4.jpg

Tigerstedt’s Helsinki Laboratory in which he carried out much of his research.

One of the more perplexing problems military planners have always faced is that of conducting night operations. Psychologically, night has always been a realm of the unknown and the uncertain, magnified by imagination. Night has commonly been characterized as "no man's friend." Surrounded by darkness, people tend to imagine sinister forces lurking in quite harmless objects; every unknown sound seems ominous. Perceptions become distorted: objects appear larger than life, and distances appear greater and are more difficult to calculate. The psychological toll this can exact, when coupled with hunger, fatigue, and combat excitement, can engender near-panic or even mass hysteria among frontline troops. Conditioned from childhood by frightening bedtime stories and by the comfort of artificial light, "civilized" people have a dread of night not shared by those who live "closer to nature." Believing that the Finnish people in general lived "closer to nature" than themselves – and in particular to the Finnish forest, the Maavoimat considered that the ability of the Finnish soldier, fighting in his own country and able to orient and handle himself at night better than his Soviet counterpart, gave them a distinct advantage. Maavoimat training also respected the physical conditioning of the Finnish soldier, his ability, for example, to lie in one position, on snow and ice in the bitter cold of a Finnish winter, without movement for hours on end, patiently awaiting an opportunity to accomplish his mission.

While dealing with this psychological barrier to the conduct of battle at night, the soldier must also cope with a myriad of more tangible problems. Coordination of forces in battle at night tests the mettle of the most proficient leader and the most highly trained forces. Yet, the fact is that those armies that can operate successfully at night have a marked advantage over adversaries who cannot and this has been recognized by warriors since the dawn of time Clausewitz in his classic On War aptly described the "fog of war" in his discussion of "friction," the difference between plans and reality that renders impossible an examination of war as an orderly, rational process. Observed Clausewitz, "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult." The knowledge of war's friction--its confusion, unpredictability, and chaos; the "influence of an infinity of petty circumstances"-- daily confronts the military planner and leader. At no time is the fog of war more pronounced than at night.

Night operations have long posed an obstacle and a challenge for soldiers. Commanders throughout history have recognized the military advantages afforded by darkness; they have employed the darkness of night to gain surprise and to grasp the initiative from the hands of the enemy – and they have also been painfully aware of the enormous difficulties attendant upon launching troops into the trap of night. Going as far back as the Trojan War, Athena guided Epeius to build a giant hollow wooden horse for Odysseus from the wood of a tree grove sacred to Apollo and leave this for the Trojans as a “parting gift.” After the Trojans decided to keep the horse and turned to a night of mad revelry and celebration "it was midnight and the clear moon was rising and the soldiers from inside the horse emerged and killed the guards”. A little more recently we can look at the nocturnal marches of Joshua and the exploits of Judas Maccabeus in biblical times and then even more recently the experiences of WW1 where problems involving special night training, control, and manpower more often than not dissuaded commanders from attempting large-scale operations in the dark.

Thus, while many military leaders of the past have embraced the night and sought to use it to their advantage, many more have avoided the consideration and use of night operations. Night combat has frequently been the recourse of the inferior military force or, as in World War II, of the army seeking either to find some respite from air power or to reduce casualties in the face of great firepower. Still, despite the difficulties associated with conducting military operations at night, military planners and leaders cannot escape one salient fact: darkness is "a double-edged weapon," and like terrain, "it favors the one who best uses it and hinders the one who does not." WW1 armies seeking to mitigate the devastating effects of firepower and the increasingly vicious nature of combat in the caudldrons of both the Western and Eastern Fronts found cause to consider or reconsider the feasibility of night operations. In no army was this tendency clearer than in the Tsraist Russian Army. Driven by desperation and necessity, the Russian Army launched nocturnal offensives as a hedge against the huge losses incurred in daytime fighting and as a means of applying unrelenting pressure on an overextended German Army.

The Russians had, since their conflict with the Ottoman Turks in 1877-78, shown both a predilection for night operations and considerable skill in conducting them. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 witnessed no fewer than 106 night attacks of company size or larger, as both sides relied on night to shield them from the increased lethality of firepower. In World War I, the Russians conducted large-scale assaults at night with as many as eighteen waves of infantry. The mass attacks of 1914-15 often failed because of poor planning, but even the Germans acknowledged that the war proved Russian night training superior to their own. During the civil war that engulfed Russia, the Red Army successfully capped its Crimean offensive by capturing the difficult fortifications on the isthmus of Perekop during a night attack conducted by troops wading across the icy waters of Sivash Bay, while the defenders faced a simultaneous frontal assault.

While as we have seen, the Suomen Maavoimat officer-class had largely emerged from the “Jaegers”, many Finns had in fact served in the Tsarist Russian Army, not the least of them being Mannerheim himself, and the Russian night-fighting experience had carried over into the Maavoimat as Finland set up its own Armed Forces following independence. With the Maavoimat’s emphasis on rapid maneuver, flanking attacks and the tactical offensive, night operations and night movement were an integral part of Maavoimat tactics from the start. Advising that "night offensives can be successful only in conditions of thorough preparation and careful organization," the Field Regulations of 1930 reflected Maavoimat caution in giving battle after dark. In each Regiment and Battalion there existed an organized group of Officers, NCO’s amd soldiers who were specially trained in “reconnoitering the march route ... to lay out, where necessary, a cross country route of march; to station posts for traffic regulation; to plan in the area of the day halt, lines for security at the halt; to, select concealed places for bivouacs. In addition to this, from the makeup of the staffs of the troops of combined arms, Officers and NCO’s were assigned to see that the troops observed in a strict manner all the rules of night march.”

As a regular part of their training, Maavoimat conscripts were trained in both night movement and in night attacks and retreats. In addition, as special “Sissi” units began to emerge in the 1930’s, these were trained extensively in night operations. As might be expected, the Maavoimat considered command and control their chief problem, not only because of the limited daylight hours available to orient troops on the terrain and to assign missions, particularly in winter with its limited daylight hours, but also because of a shortage of the signaling equipment necessary for tight coordination. Through the 1930’s, Maavoimat night-fighting doctrine and tactics would continue to evolve. Thus, one understands the early support from the Maavoimat for Tigerstedt’s “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Device and its introduction into an experimental Regimental Combat Group in early 1938. The Maavoimat understood night-fighting and the advantages that it brought. And the Maavoimat was always open to considering equipment and tactics which would enhance their night-fighting capabilities.

Thus, whenTigerstedt proposed to use infared searchlights and viewing devices to give the Maavoimat “night-vision,” those responsible for making such decisions could immediately see the applicability of the technology and gave it their cautious but enthusiastic support. And it wasn’t as if it was brand-new and completely unproven technology either.

As far back as 1895 Ferdinand Braun , professor of physics at the University of Strassburg had discovered the cathode ray tube (CRT) - a vacuum tube containing an electron gun also known as a Braunsche Röhre or Braun tube. A little later in 1907, Russian scientist Boris Rosing used a CRT at the receiving end of an experimental video signal to form a picture. He managed to display simple geometric shapes onto the screen, marking the first time that CRT technology was used for what is now known as television. By 1898, J. J. Thomson could deflect electron beams with a static electric field by putting two metallic plates in the CRT. Research into thermoelectric emission from 1882 to1901 led to J. A. Fleming’s invention of the vacuum diode—an apparatus that works on electron principles. In 1924, French physicist Louis de Broglie hypothesized that the electron had wavelike properties. When the hypothesis was proved, it launched the rapidly progressing scientific discipline of electro-optics. In 1926, H. Bush studied rotationally symmetric electric and magnetic fields and showed that they can act as lenses. This research resulted in the design of a number of electro-optical devices.

The idea of the electro-optical converter, including the multistage one, was proposed by G. Holst and H. de Boer of The Netherlands in 1928. Yet the first attempts to make a converter were not successful. A working device was made by employees of Philips in 1934. The invention was given the name “Holst glass”. British firm EMI developed an industrial sample of the electro-optical converter and started to produce them for the British Armed Forces. Besides the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, Germany and the USA had also started intensive research in the field. In the early thirties, as the world was fascinated with advancements in radio, scientists were trying to bring to life the ultimate radio, one that would transmit an actual image. With scientists and inventors on the hunt for “television”, other collateral inventions like electronic microscopes, electronic telescopes, radar, early machine vision and rudimentary night vision devices had also emerged.

The first practical commercial night vision device offered on the market was developed by Dr. Vladimir K. Zworykin working for the Radio Corporation of America and was intended for civilian use. It was not a success due to its size and cost but had been publicised in the March 1936 issue of Popular Science – and Tigerstedt was certainly aware of the work that had been done. In Germany, AEG had also started working on infrared devices in 1935 and again, Tigerstedt with his widespread contacts in the German scientific community was in a position to glean information on the research and work that had been done. In addition of course, there was also Baird’s Noctovision apparatus with which Tigerstedt was intimately familiar. All in all then, Tigerstedt was starting his work with a firm grasp of both the theory and the current state of the art technology in the field.

zworykin.jpg

March 1936 Popular Science “Black-Light Telescope Sees in the Dark” – designed and built by Vladimir Kozmich Zworykin, the first night vision is born

On January 17th 1935, Volume 93 of the Zeitschrift für Physik (Journal of Physics) was published. It contained the work of German experimental physicist Walter Schaffernicht titled Über die Umwandlung von Lichtbildern in Elektronenbilder (On the conversion of photographs in electron images). Schaffernicht worked at physics laboratories at Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG). The worked described “An experimental set-up where a sufficiently accurate conversion of photographs in electron images is possible. Where an image is projected onto a photo cathode and triggered electrons are accelerated with an anode voltage of several thousand volts and united by a magnetic lens to form an electrical image”. Six month later, on August 8th 1936 Walter Schaffernicht and the head of the AEG lab Ernst Carl Reinhold Brüchethe filed international patent application #158,880 titled “Electron Image Tube”. The claim application describes “an electron tube based on photo-cathode and able to reproduce images with great sharpness and without distortion”. Subsequently United States Patent Office issues a patent 2,179,083 on November 7th 1939.

3220193620the20aeg20pat.jpg

United States Patent # 2,179,083 issued on November 7th 1939.

3320193620soviet20union.jpg

In parallel, in the spring of 1935, V. I. Krasovsky’s laboratory in Soviet Union was able to fabricate systems similar to Holst glass, and by 1936 “semitransparent photocathodes with sensitivity higher than competitive samples were obtained”.

Within weeks Tigerstedt had designed and built a prototype viewing device for use in conjunction with the infrared filter which was now applied to the “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” searchlight device with which the Matilda tanks’s were equipped. In the initial trial this viewing device was fitted in the Commander’s cupola but of course this meant the Driver was driving blind. A second unit was fitted, with some difficulty, for the driver of the Matilda but at this point the Skoda TNHP tank crew involved in the trial pointed out that to fight affectively, they too needed viewers and it would be better if they had infrared searchlights that they could control themselves. At this point, with the devices viability confirmed, a working group of Officers, NCO’s and men from the experimental Regimental Combat Group were brought together for what we would now term a “brainstorming session.” It was remarkably effective and after a solid week of discussions, the group made a series of recommendations to Tigerstedt.

Chief among these were that the Skoda TNHP tanks be fitted with their own infrared searchlights and viewers to enable then to fight independently and effectively as tanks, while the more powerful searchlights on the Matilda’s should be used to support the Infantry units fighting in coordination with the TNHP tanks. In turn, it was recommended that the Infantry should themselves be equipped with infrared lights and viewers mounted on their Rifles and Machineguns, enabling them to fight effectively at night in conjunction with the tanks, otherwise they would also be “fighting blind” so to speak. Tigerstedt buckled down to the task, working day and night, sleeping and eating in his lab and driving is team mercilessly. With 4 weeks the team had designed and built infrared searchlights and viewers to be fitted and used for the Skoda TNHP tanks. From the sole prototype example remaining in the Helsinki Military Museum, we know that the early viewing devices are largely based on Dr. Vladimir K. Zworykin’s viewers as built for the Radio Corporation of America. However, Tigerstedt had made numerous changes and improvements and the unit as it went into production showed significant differences, one of the critical improvements being the reduced size of the viewing equipment. One unit was designated for use by the driver, one for the gunner and an external cupola-mounted unit had been designed for the tank commander by way of a mount installed in the commander’s hatchway. Initial range of the lights was approximately 100m (as compared to an effective range of almost 1km for the Matilda-mounted Infrared-filtered Searchlights).

image24du.jpg

The Commander’s Infrared Searchlight and Viewer. The 100m range was inadequate and while Tigerstedt struggled to come up with a more powerful light, operationally a Matilda I Searchlight Tank was attached to each troop of 4 Skoda TNHP tanks, extending the effectiveness of the Infrared Viewer out to almost 1km. By late 1939 a more powerful searchlight had been fitted giving a range of around 600m.

image25d.jpg

A battery stand and electric generator for the Infrared Lights and Viewers was mounted in the right rear of the crew compartment. An external armoured stowage bin was fitted to the rear of the turret to carry auxiliary equipment.

The units were easy to install and remove, taking no more than a couple of minutes and following further trials over the summer of 1938, the devices were put into production. By the spring of 1939, all 45 Skoda TNHP tanks had been fitted with the devices.

06954k.jpg

The Maavoimat’s Skoda-built CKD/Praga TNHP Tank. Armed with a Bofors 37mm gun and 2 machineguns, with a Crew of 4 and a speed of 42kph, this was a capable armoured fighting vehicle for 1939. Fitted with Infrared Searchlights and Active Infrared Viewers and operating in conjunction with Infantry equipped with personal infrared lights and viewers attached to their rifles, it gave the Maavoimat a night-fighting capability that was hitherto unheard of. Later in WW2, Infrared Searchlights and Viewers would be fitted to almost all Maavoimat armoured fighting vehicles.

nightvision1z.jpg

Illustrations from the Maavoimat’s Installation Manual for Infrared Searchlights and Viewers for TNHP Tanks

This “Generation 0” night-vision equipment did have its flaws of course. To start with, it WAS Generation 0, the first night-vision equipment designed and built to be used in combat by any military in the world. Size was an issue to a certain extemt – the tank-mounted devices were large and to use them, the driver and commander needed their cupolas opem, thus exposing themselves to fire. “Buttoned down,” the units could not be used except for the main-gun aimer. Later, this would be rectified but for the TNHP and Matilda tanks, it increased the personal risk to the crews considerably. Another downside of “active” night vision when infrared light was used was that, as with the “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” searchlight device, it was quite obvious to anyone else using the technology. The good news of course was that no-one else at the time WAS using the technology as far as the Finns were aware. And unlike later night-vision technologies, early Generation 0 night vision devices were unable to significantly amplify the available ambient light and so, to be useful, they definotely required the infra-red source. The viewing devices actually used an S1 photocathode or "silver-oxygen-caesium" photocathode, discovered in 1930 which had a sensitivity of around 60 µA/lm (Microampere per Lumen) and a quantum efficiency of around 1% in the ultraviolet region and around 0.5% in the infrared region.

Tigerstedt turned next to the development of an active infrared device for the infantry. The system as designed and developed consisted of a small infrared spotlight with a 5-inch deameter lamp powered with a 35 watt bulb (actually a conventional tungsten light source shining through a filter permitting only infrared light. It operated in the upper infrared (light) spectrum rather than in the lower infrared (heat) spectrum and therefore was not sensitive to body heat), one component of its active infrared system which weighed about 5lbs, fixed atop the Maavoimat’s impressive Lahti-Saloranta 7.62mm assault rifle. Below this infrared light was a viewer about 14 inches long that could detect the light emitted by the IR lamp. Since this light was invisible to anyone not equipped with a viewer system it gave a massive edge over relying on flashlights and flares for illumination. However, the soldier using the equipment did have to be looking through the Viewer to see anything. The maximum ramge was about 100 meters. The system mounted on the gun was linked by insulated wire to a heavy 13.5 kilogram (about 30 lbs.) wooden cased battery pack and simple control box that the soldier wore in place of his normal gear. A second battery was fitted inside a gas mask container to power the image converter. This was all strapped to a standard Maavoimat pack frame. Think of it as a very crude analog to today's night fighting systems – able to transform a normal soldier into one capable of fighting in complete darkness without revealing his position.

4320gen20020night20visi.jpg

Maavoimat soldiers with an Infrared-equipped Rifle. After trials and some very enthusiastic feedback, the system was designated “Kollikissa” (Tomcat - because we all know Tomcat's can see in the dark) and placed in production in early 1939.

nightvision3.jpg

Tigerstedt also developed am Infrared Snipersope for Night-Sniping. This was handled by two operators. And again, this device was in short supply when the Winter War broke out - but by mid-1940, almost all Battalion’s had at least one set, together with a Sniper Team trained in the use of the device. The first operator (the viewer) had to find the target with the help of an IR binocular and then light it with a powerful IR illuminator. The second operator took sight and fired. The riflescope allowed night shooting at targets located anywhere from 60 to 300 meters away.

nightvision2.jpg

Another infared equipped weapon – this time a Suomi submachinegun used for nightfighting.

The last infrared device that Tigerstedt designed was the Nokia 39 night-vision Binoculars. Simply, this was set of binoculars with image intensifier tubes and an Infared light mounted above to provide an active light source. Initially it was designed for the experimental unit, but such was its usefulness that the Maavoimat ordered enough to provide at least one per Infantry Company. Only an initial batch had been delivered by the start of the Winter War but such was their usefulness for night observation that shortly before the Winter War started, Nokia was asked to maximize production. Numbers in service steadily increased and by the summer of 1940, all Maavoimat Infantry Companies were equipped with the devices. They were highly valued for night sentry watch on the frontlines and the limited number available in 1939 were all allocated to units on the Karelian Isthmus where they proved invaluable in watching for signs of Red Army night attacks.

5520ferro205120gen20020.jpg

Manufactured by Nokia, a set of Nokia 39 night-vision Binoculars. Main features of the device were a weight of 2.25kgs, waterproof device body, rubber armor and high shock resistance, single eyepiece diopter focusing ranging scale from -5 to +5, wide field of vision, 6x optical magnification, dimensions LxHxW 270 mm x 85 mm x 166mm, operated from a single 1.5V power source. The spotlight was the same a 5-inch deameter lamp powered with a 35 watt bulb (a conventional tungsten light source shining through a filter permitting only infrared light) that was fitted to the assault rifle and the same heavy 13.5 kilogram (about 30 lbs.) wooden cased battery pack was needed to provide a power source for the spotlight. The spotlight had the same maximum range of approximately 100m, but in passive mode the viewer could actually detect images out to 400m. To activate this device you pushed one of the top buttons, the infrared spotlight and scope were activated and received invisible infrared light. After one minute, the power was cutoff (to help preserve battery life), and you had to push one of the buttons again to restart.

lrgblackouteye.jpg

By the end of WW2, Tigerstedt had designed and built a prototype helmet-mounted personal infrared viewing device. Clamped to a helmet, the equipment combined an infrared light source and a electronic vision devices. Its energy came from a power pack and battery which was carried in a knapsack on the operator’s back. A Jaeger Company from “Verenimijä” was equipped with the devices on a trial basis and ihey were used in combat in the last weeks of WW2. In the early 1950’s Nokia sold the technology to the US Army for a considerable amount.

Following trials in the last quarter of 1938, the Kollikissa (Tomcat) infrared light and viewer unit was placed in production and a sufficient quantity to equip the three Infantry Battalions that were the Jaeger infantry component of the experimental Regimental Combat Group was ordered. These were largely delivered by mid-1939 and in a series of training exercises the Regimental Combat Group honed their night-fighting tactics. Weeks before the start of the Winter War, the Regiment was permitted to design their own unit patch and nickname.

It was a name that would terrify anyone the Maavoimat fought over the next 6 years. “Verenimijä”

Other Maavoimat units would go on to utilize the Kollikissa units, with small specialist Night-Sniper units forming a part of almost all Maavoimat Infantry Battalions before the end of the Winter War. But it was “Verenimijä” that would conduct large scale night attacks throughout the war, often eliminating whole Soviet battalions in sudden attacks in the darkness of the night.

Trials and exercises over the months before the Winter War started helped “Verenimijä” develop their tactical doctrine and procedures for use of the equipment, which was difficult to use without considerable training and experience. For maximum utilization of the equipment, it was found that 20 to 30 minutes in total darkness were required to attain satisfactory retinal dark adaptation. While dark adaptation of the rods develops rather slowly over a period of 20 to 30 minutes, it can be lost in a few seconds of exposure to bright light (such as the flashes from a rifle barrel when firing. Accordingly, during night operations soldiers were taught to avoid bright lights, or, at least, protect one eye. Dark adaptation is an independent process in each eye. Even though bright light may shine into one eye, the other eye will retain its dark adaptation if it is protected from the light. This is a useful bit of information, because a soldier can prevent flash blindness and preserve dark adaptation in one eye by simply closing or covering it. The soldier was taught to avoid looking at exhaust flames, strobes, searchlights, etc. to avoid temporary flash blindness. (The Maavoimat had already developed flash “suppressors” to reduce muzzle flash and these were standard for the new Lahti-Saloranta SLR 7.62mm assault rifles with which “Verenimijä” was equipped).

The Maavoimat had also found that daytime exposure to ordinary sunlight produced temporary but cumulative aftereffects on dark adaptation and night vision. Maavoimat studies in the mid-1930’s documented significantly diminished rod performance after prolonged sunlight exposure in winter-snow conditions. Two or three hours of bright sunlight exposure was shown to delay the onset of rod dark adaptation by 10 minutes or more, and to decrease the final threshold, so that full night vision sensitivity could not be reached for hours. After 10 consecutive days of sunlight exposure, the losses in night vision reported caused a 50 % loss in visual acuity, visibility range, and contrast discrimination. Repeated daily exposures to sunlight prolonged the time to reach normal scotopic sensitivity, so that eventually normal rod sensitivity might not be reached.

Several means for providing eye protection during the day and conserving night vision were identified. First, soldiers planning on conducting hight operations should remain in a darkened bunker or bivouac if possible. While outside, theyshould wear their sunglasses and a hat with a brim, which would block a great deal of ambient solar radiation. Dark sunglasses that transmit only 15% of the visible light were found to prevent degradation of night vision. In general, one day of protection from sunlight exposure was usualy sufficient to recover normal vision sensitivity. However, in certain individuals, it was found that it could take days to weeks to recover full night vision capability and soldiers with this sort of propensity to night vision loss were usually not accepted for “Verenimijä.” Consequently, another of the Finnish icons from WW2 was the image of the “Verenimijä” trooper wearing his Fenno-Optica manufactured Rauska-Kieltää sunglasses.

pict0261tnwm.jpg

WW2 “cool” – a “Verenimijä” trooper with his sunglasses working on a truck engine during “down-time” between Ops.Summer 1940. The fake Vampire fangs that you often see along with the Fenno-Optica Rauska-Kieltää sunglasses in photos of the “Verenimijä” troopers from the war were a bit of an "in-joke."

In general, even with the night vision devices, “Verenimijä” would use much closer formations than during the day in order to prevent loss of contact. To surprise and confuse the opposition is one of the major night objectives, and this result was often gained by silent infiltrations around the flanks and between defensive positions. Frequently the “Verenimijä” men would crawl great distances at night to a point where they could leap upon the opposing forces before the latter were able to take action and in this their night vision devices enable them to identify and target the enemy with great accuracy. To assist in rapid target identification, all “Verenimijä” personnel wore special “infrared reflective” patches on their uniforms which were otherwise invisible – but which served to make the “Verenimijä” men standout to their own side, thus enabling close quarter shooting and accurate fire support while in close proximity to their own men. They were trained to a high dgree of proficiency in this particular skill as well as in infiltration techniques.

In addition, to minimize noise where possible the “Verenimijä” men were trained to a high standard in the Finnish military KKT combat technique, using their knives, machetes and sharpened combat spades with lethal force and skill. They were highly skilled in infiltration techniques and as mentioned, would often penetrate deep within a Red Army position, identify and target enemy troops and then launch a sudden and overwhelmingly rapid attack. Carefully planned, protected by darkness and aided by there own ability to see using the infrared viewers, these attacks were almost always successful and helped create a terrifying impression of the Finns among the generally poorly educated Soviet conscripts. Later in WW2, as they fought the Germans, they would terrify them with the same capabilities – and more often than not they would also put a shiver down the back of their allies with their ability to move silently and invisibly through the night, appearing in the midst of Allied units as if by magic. Not for nothing woud the German Army call them “Vampire.” Perhaps the only soldiers to equal the Maavoimat in the forest and at night would be the Maori Battalion of the New Zealand Division. And they too would be feared by the Germans, in their case though it would largely be due to their predilection for cold steel and hand to hand combat – something they shared with many Finns.

Finnish night-fighting tactics had evolved considerably over the course of the Winter War. As the Maavoimat struggled first for survival and then for dominance over the Red Army, Maavoimat night operations matured. The Field Regulations of 1941 echoed that growing confidence: "Under present day conditions tactical actions at night are usual occurrences. The darkness of night and our night-vvision equipment favors surprise to the maximum degree and lessens losses from enemy fire." Pursuant to the regulations and with increased availability of night-vision equipment, night operations grew in number, boldness, and scale.

The Maavoimat’s night-fighting ability was something that first the Soviets and then the Germans feared. Writing after the war, General Friedrich Wilhelm von Mellenthin, the chief of staff of the xxth Panzer Corps, described its destruction in the Finnish breakthrough to relieve Warsaw: “The Finns did not stop their attacks when darkness fell, and they exploited every success immediately and without hesitation. Some of the Finnish attacks were made by tanks moving in at top speed; indeed speed, momentum and concentration were the causes of their success. The main effort of the attacking Finnish armor was speedily switched from one point to another as the situation demanded and the accuracy of their night-shooting was unparalleled in our experience. It was as if they could see in the dark.” Little did von Mellenthin know at the time that this was in fact the case. Successful night operations were a feature of the Maavoimat throughout WW2 as they fought first the Russians and then the Germans.

The Maavoinat was also capable of night river-crossings against strong opposition, as von Mellenthin also noted. “Bridgeheads in the hands of the Finns are a grave danger indeed. It is quite wrong not to worry about bridgeheads, and to postpone their elimination. Finnish bridgeheads, however small and harmless they may appear, are bound to grow into formidable danger-points in a very brief time and soon become insuperable strong points. A Finnish bridgehead, occupied by a company in the evening, is sure to be occupied by at least a regiment by the following morning and during the night will become a formidable fortress, well-equipped with heavy weapons and everything necessary to make it almost impregnable. And the Finns will contune to attack using the cover of darkness even as they move additional units into the bridgehead with a rapidity which defies belief. No artillery fire, however violent and well concentrated, will wipe out a Finnish bridgehead which has grown overnight. The danger cannot be overrated.”

During World War II, the Maavoiimat was not the only Army to employ successful night operations and night-vision equipment. And they certainly did not carry out the largest-scale night operations – but they did make the earliest and most effective use of night vision equipment, and they used it on a scale that no other military achieved for two decades. The Germans had used night operations in Poland in 1939 to pursue the withdrawing Poles in order to achieve an operational advantage. Desert operations in North Africa often capitalized on darkness because daylight gave the defender substantial advantages. In the fighting from El Alamein to Tunis, every major attack began at night. Pursuit operations in Sicily continued around the clock. In Italy and France, the U.S. 3d Infantry Division adopted night operations as a standing operating procedure and developed considerable skill in execution. It distinguished night attacks from daylight attacks only by the degree of control required. Specially trained for night operations by its commander in the United States, the U.S. 104th Infantry Division launched more than 100 successful night attacks in Holland and Germany. The U.S. 30th Infantry Division had similar successes in France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany. The Germans used night operations in the east more and more as the odds turned against them and as the Russians and then the Finns forced them to fight at night. In the west, Allied air power and firepower forced a similar reversion to night operations on the part of the Germans.

Thus night operations were not unique to the Maavoimat. What was unique was that the Maavoimat conducted night operations more often and more effectively than any of the other combatants in World War II. The Maavoimat's selective use of night operations enhanced their powerful reconnaissance in force, advanced detachment, and second echelon operations. By the latter stages of the war (1944-45) when they joined the fight against Nazi Germany, their operations reflected the considerable skill, training, and leadership they had developed as well as their tactical proficiency in the use of night-vision devices. Although these operations were by no means universally successful, any examination of the growth and success of Maavoimat night operation reveals their dynamic nature and defies simple generalizations.

As might be expected by the ebb and flow of Finnish fortunes, the development of Maavoimat night operations during the war was uneven. The initial impetus for the increased use of night operations came from early successes in this tactic in the first phase of the Winter War and the incentive provided by the ineptitude of the early Red Army attacks. In the late Winter offensive which took the Maavoimat to the White Sea amd which ended with the liberation of all of Karelia and the capture of Murmansk, Military Headquarters had issued a special directive ordering "extensive surprise nighttime operations." In practice, this order translated into a series of actions with limited but specific objectives. With the shifting of the strategic balance to the Maavoimat, however, the Maavoimat began to consider night operations in terms of more ambitious offensives and in the retaking of the Krelian Isthmus in Spring 1940, the Maavoimat planned night operations on a larger scale in order to take advantage of the newfound mobility and offensive power both of “Verenimijä” and of the other Maavoimat units being equipped with night-vision devices.

Front-level night operations over the summer of 1940 tended to be more limited in scope. Over this period the Maavoimat employe d night attacks primarily in strategically defensive operations. An increased reliance on night operations demonstrated the desire to achieve surprise and to grasp the tacticainitiative (always important considerations in the Maavoimat Approach to war). This was exemplified in the operations of the Syvari counter-offensive in late summer 1940, when the last major Red Army offensive operation of the Winter War was defeated. Later in WW2, over 1944 and 1945 as the Maavoimat fought the German Army, the need to conserve manpower and to achieve surprise encouraged night operations. Under these circumstances, night operations continued to be important for reconnaissance in force, advanced detachment spearheads, and other forms of day-night offensive operations designed to keep the Germans continually off balance and to maintain combat pressure on them.

This phase of the Maavoimat’s war began with the invasion of Estonua and ended with the Maavoimat on the outskirts of Berlin. It also witnessed numerous and for the most part successful night engagements in the East Prussian and Vistula-Oder campaigns as well as in the Relief of Warsaw. Although these campaigns primarily involved the use of forward detachments in pursuit operations and the skillful introduction of second echelon forces at night, they also included operations as diverse as night attacks on German lines of communication and headquarters as well as penetrations of German frontline units. It is perhaps worthwhile also noting the skilled Maavoimat use of Airborne operations in conjunction with night attacks in both the Winter War and the war against the Germans to increase the depth of penetration and the momentum of the attack. These airborne landings were eminently successful in gaining and maintaining the initiative and minimizing their casualties. Although the Maavoimat at times suffered heavy casualties and even reverses at night, this was more the exception than the rule. Most senior Red Army and German officers who fought the Finns acknowledged their "natural superiority in fighting during night, fog, rain or snow” and especially their skill in night infiltration tactics, reconnaissance, and troop movements and concentrations.

The success of Maavoimat night operations was in large part due to a combination of thenight-vision equipment and the intensive training and the ability to profit from mistakes and failures. Both the Soviets and Germans, who were equally sparing and hesitant in their compliments concerning Finnish military prowess were nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the Finnish ability to completely outclass their opponents.

In the months before the Winter War (and also in the period between the Winter War and the Finns joining in against the Germans) the Maavoimat trained vigorously on terrain similar to that which they expected to encounter. Mockups and live fire enhanced realism in combined arms exercises. Training for breakthrough of a fortified area, for example, included command post exercises with maps and terrain models, followed by reconnaissance on the ground; it emphasized coordination with combined arms support, coordination with adjacent units, and the "display of daring and intelligent initiative.” For the troopers, extensive live fire training and night operations was continually emphasized until it became almost second nature to move and fight at night with the night vision equipment. From mid-1943 on "virtually all regiments" of the Maavoimat trained for night combat in order to maintain high operational tempos. This seems essentially correct. Units participating in the East Prussian Operation had a battalion from each Regimental Combat Group trained specifically for night operations, and up to one-half of all training for all units was at night. Other battalions trained for assaults on a fortified zone, pursuit operations, and advanced detachment operations, all of which might and usually did involve night combat. Published guidance in the field service regulations established a certain degree of uniformity however.

Although the Maavoimat made a great effort to analyze the evolution and growth of night operations since the war, during the war they were probably not fully aware of how far these operations had permeated their tactics at all levels. Nonetheless, it is obvious that not all Maavoimat units were involved in night operations to the same extent, although day-night pursuit, river crossings, and reduction of encirclements at night were common. The 1944 Field Service Regulations, while describing night actions as "usual occurrences," nonetheless cautioned that plans should be simple in concept and limited in mission, with short, straightforward attack movements. Complicated maneuvers were not forbidden but they were not encouraged. Yet another factor in Maavoimat successes in night fighting operations was the outstanding Maavoimat field communications system, and especially the prevalence of the new Nokia Combat Radios – with “Verenimijä” being one of the first units to be fully equipped with these – a considerable tactical advantage.

Overall though, Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä” remained the specialist night-fighting unit throughout the Winter War and World War 2. “Verenimijä” continually developed and refined night-fighting tactics, passing these on to other units. And it was “Verenimijä” that would carry out the most critical and important night operations. “Verenimijä” did indeed “Rule the Night.”
 
Unit Organisation: Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä”

Unit Organisation: Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä”

As per Organisation tables, Regimental Combat Group “Verenimijä” had an an overall strength of 4094 men (and women). “Verenimijä” was established as a pure night-fighting unit from the start, a Brigade-sized combined arms combat team specializing in night-fighting and capable of operating and supporting itself independently. The unit was intended to be relatively mobile and self-sufficient, with the stated objective being to move the unit around for specific missions as prioritized by Military Headquarters. “Verenimijä” specialized in Regimental-sized night attacks and the men were highly-trained in this particular aspect of fighting, which included extensive close-quarter night-fighting combat training. From the start, the unit was equipped with a higher than normal proportion of automatic weapons as a result.

From the start, the unit had included a sizable armoured component, with one Panssaripataljoona (armoured battalion) equipped with Matilda I tanks fitted with searchlights. The second Panssaripataljoona consisted of Skoda built TNHP tanks, the main armament of which consisted of a Bofors 37mm gun, an effective weapon of the 1939 era. The unit was originally formed from two Jaeger battalions and two armoured battalions together with regimental-sized support units, but as experience was gained through ongoing exercises and experimentation, it was found that this combination was not ideal, being too light on infantry and without sufficient logistical support for the armoured battalions. Combined arms missions and tactics were emphasixed from the start, and as experience was gained, the need for artillery support integral to the Regiment was highlighted, as relying in artillery from other units for support lead to delays and at times confusion in responding when rapid and accurate artillery support was called for.

The unit’s original mission, when the tanks had been fitted with the “Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” strobe-searchlight device, had been to lead night-attacks. However, as the new Infrared Night-vision devices filtered down to the infantry, with night-vision equipment fitted to individual rifles and machineguns and the new night-vision binoculars being issued to front-line personnel, the unit expanded its role into raiding and into more stealthy attack techniques, emphasizing infiltration and surprise. As experience was gained, the Regiment grew in size to include an additional Jaeger battalion, additional logistical support and a sizable artillery component integral to the Regiment. At the same time, as familiarity with the night-vision equipment grew and tactics were honed, the men of“Verenimijä” developed a real esprit-de-corps. They developed and honed infiltration techniques and worked to perfect sudden and overwhelming night attack tactics – practicing on other Maavoimat units. They worked at techniques for calling in artillery support in the darkness without giving away theuir position and adjusted their Jaegerpataljoona weapons mix, emphasizing a higher proportion of the Suomi SMG’s for example. They also developed camoflauge clothing for night missions in different seasons and weather – summer forest and winter snow for example, as well as for different light conditions.

In September 1939, when “Verenimijä” was mobilized in the lead-up to the Winter War, the unit strength and organisation was as follows:

Regimental Combat Group HQ (489 men)

HQ (33 Officers, 39 NCO’s and Men: Broken down as follows – Command/Staff = 11 Officers, 9 NCOs; Intel = 2 Officers, 9 NCO’s; Ops Planning = 5 Officers, 5 NCO’s; Training = 2 Officers, 3 NCO’s; Supply & Transport = 6 Officers, 5 NCO’s; Fire Support = 3 Officers, 5 NCO’s; Ordnance = 3 Officers, 2 NCO’s; Engineers = 1 Officer, 1 NCO)
(Note: While “Verenimijä”, as with other Finnish units, was called a “Regimental Combat Group,” in effect by mid-1939 all such units were in actual fact Combined Arms Brigades. With its own panssaaripataljoona and large artillery and logistics units, “Verenimijä” was larger than a standard “Regimental Combat Group” and had far heavier firepower. It could to some extent be considered a light Division. As such, the actual HQ was larger than a standard Regimental HQ).

HQ Security Platoon (32 men)

Viestikomppania (Signals Company – 129 men)

Reconaissance Company (identical organizationally to an Infantry Company but specialized training and skills in reconnaissance – 112 men. All men were also trained paratroopers, part of their training consisting of parachute drops into forest at night. The Recce Company were the elite Jaeger Companies of the Regiment, competition to get into this company was fierce and the entry requirements were tough).

Pioneerikomppania (Engineer Company – 144 men)

Pioneerikomppania HQ Ryhmä (16 men - CO, 2IC, 2 Sgts, 5 Sigs/Messengers, Measuring Man, Driver, Orderly, 4 man Security Ryhmä)

3 x Pioneerijoukkue (Engineer Platoons – each 34 men)

Joukkue Command Squad (1 Officer, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Messengers, 1 Medic)
Pioneeriryhmä I (Engineer Squad I) (Corporal – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader, 7 Men)
Pioneeriryhmä II (8 men, as above)
Pioneeriryhmä III (8 men, as above)
Explosives vehicle: 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
Tools vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
Food/animal feedstuff vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)
Backpack and tent vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)

1 x Pioneeri Supplies Platoon (26 men)

Joukkue Command Squad (Company Sergeant-Major, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Clerks, 1 Messenger)

Equipment Ryhmä I (Equipment Squad I – 11 men)
NCO – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader
Blacksmith & Field-smith vehicle (or Mechanic)
Anti-chemical weapons vehicle, 3 men (horse & cart/sledge)
2 tools vehicles, 2 men (horses & carts/sledges)
2 building material vehicles, 2 men (horses & carts/sledges)
Explosives truck, 2 men (2 - 3 ton truck)

Supplies Ryhmä II (9 men)
Supplies NCO
Shoemaker
Food Provisions (1) and Cooks (2)
Field Kitchen, 1 man
Kitchen vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge)
Food and animal feedstuff vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge)
Backpack and tent vehicle, 1 man (horse & cart/sledge or truck)

Yöjääkäripataljoona I, II and III (3 x Night-Jaeger Battalions – each 704 men, 15 Matilda Tanks fitted with Infrared-filtered Searchlights)

Battalion HQ (195 men)
Battalion Headquarters (5 Officers, 20 men)
Security Platoon (32 men - identical to standard Yöjääkärijoukkue)
Signals Platoon (47 men)
Reconaissance Platoon (32 men – identical to standard Yöjääkärijoukkue)
Mortar Platoon (4 x 81mm Mortars, 49 men)
Battalion Admin Section (Officer (also Training Officer), Chaplain, 2 NCO’s, 6 men)

finnish20mortar20pit.jpg

Maavoimat 81mm Mortar Pit: Each Infantry Battalion had a Mortar Platoon equipped with 4 of these Tampella-manufactured 81mm Mortars (photo photo reproduced from http://www.kevos4.com with permission)

3 x Yöjääkärikomppania (Night-Jaeger Infantry Companies) (all personnel equipped with Infrared-fitted weapons) – each 112 men

Company HQ (20 men)
Company Commander
Command Squad (6 man Sigs/Messenger Section, 4 man Night-Sniper Section, 9 man AT Section)

3 x Yöjääkärijoukkue (Night-Jaeger Platoon – each of 32 men)

Joukkue Command Squad (1 Officer, 1 Sgt, 1 Sig, 2 Messengers, 1 Medic, 2 man Night-Sniper Team)
Jääkäriryhmä I (Jaeger Squad I) (Corporal – Ryhmänjohtaja or Squad Leader, 2 man LMG Team, 2 SMG Men, 3 Riflemen)
Jääkäriryhmä II (8 men, as above)
Jääkäriryhmä III (8 men, as above)

1 x Attached Tankkikomppania (15 Matilda I Tanks with Infrared Searchlights, 70 men)

Tank Company HQ Joukku (Platoon, 12 men)
3 Matilda Tanks (6 men)
1 Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)

3 x Tankkijoukku (3 x Tank Platoons – 24 men in total)
4 Matilda Tanks in each Platoon (8 men)

matildacdl.jpg

Maavoimat Matilda MkI fitted with the“Suuritehotaisteluvalonheitin” Infrared Searchlight Device.

Tankkikomppania Maintenance & Repair Joukku (24 men)
2 Engine Repair Shop Trucks (1 NCO, 7 men)
2 Infrared Equipment Repair Shop Trucks (1 NCO, 7 men)
1 Weapons Repair Shop Truck (1 NCO, 3 men)
2 Recovery Tractors (1 NCO, 3 men)

Tankkikomppania Supplies Joukku (10 men)
1 Office Truck, 1 NCO, 1 Sigs
1 x Kitchen Truck, 1 man, 1 Cook
2 x Ammunition Trucks, 2 men
2 x Fuel Trucks, 2 men
1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
1 x Supplies Truck, 1 man

fordmuulifueltanker.jpg

Suomen Ford Muuli Fuel Tanker – Civilian fuel delivery trucks were mobilized into the military for use as Fuel Tankers. Civilian fuel distribution was severely curtailed for the duration of the Winter War.

Huoltoyksiköitä / Battalion Logistics Company (103 men)

Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, CSM, 2 Sgts, 4 Sigs/Messengers, 2 x Drivers, 4 man Security Ryhmä)

Ammunition Supplies Platoon (27 men)
1 Office Truck, NCO, 1 Sigs, 1 Clerk
2 Workshop Trucks, 2 x Gunsmiths, 2 x Infrared Equipment Specialists,
8 Trucks, 8 Men, 8 Drivers,
2 Repair Shop Trucks, 4 Mechanics

General Supplies Platoon (26 men)
10 Trucks, 20 men
3 x Field Kitchen Vehicles, 6 men

fordmuuli.jpg

Here, the ubiquitous Ford Muuli Truck which provided the backbone of the Maavoimat’s Logistical Transportation units. Produced by the Ford Helsinki factory, there were thousands of these trucks in Finland by 1939, and a large proportion of them were mobilized for use by the Military in the Winter War. There drivers were almost all Lotta Svärd personnel.

Medical Platoon (36 men/women)
HQ (1 NCO, 2 Clerks, 1 Sigs, 2 Morgue Attendants)
Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
Stablisation Ryhmä: 1 x Medic Sgt, 5 Medics
Evacuation Ryhmä: 4 Ambulance Trucks, 4 Drivers, 4 Medics
1 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 1 man
1 x Medical Supplies Truck, 1 man
1 x Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 1 man + 1 Cook

fordmuulifieldkitchen.jpg

In the event of war, Plans had been drawn up and equipment stockpiled for the conversion of many civilian Ford Muuli Trucks into Field Kitchens. One such example is shown here.

Panssaripataljoona (Armoured Battalion, 45 Skoda-built CKD/Praga TNHP Tanks armed with a Bofors 37mm Gun maingun, 2 x machineguns and Infrared Searchlights and Viewers, 449 men )

Panssaripataljoona HQ (133 men)
HQ (5 Officers, 19 men)
Security Platoon (32 men)
Signals Platoon (47 men)

Ilmatorjuntapatteri (AA Battery/Platoon, 4 x Towed Bofors 40mm AA Guns, 52 men)

1 x Command Truck, CO, NCO, 3 Sigs
4 x Trucks, 4 x Bofors 40mm AA-guns (20 men)
1 x Fire Control Truck with Gamma Fire Control Computer and FC Unit (FC Officer, FC NCO, 8 man FC Computer Team)
1 x Truck with Range Measuring Team (1 NCO, 4 men – Measurer, Aimer, Reader, Observer, Assistant)

picture12cx.jpg

Tampella-manufactured Bofors 40mm Model 1938 B Antiaircraft Gun: photo reproduced from http://www.kevos4.com with permission

Ilmatorjuntapatteri Supplies Joukku (12 men)
2 x Ammunition Trucks (NCO + 3 men, NCO also acted as gunsmith)
2 x Fuel Trucks (4 men)
1 x Field Kitchen Vehicle (1 man, 1 Cook)
1 x Supplies Truck (1 NCO, 1 Clerk)

3 x Tankkikomppania (15 Tanks and 60 men per Company)

Tank Company HQ Joukku (Platoon, 18 men)
3 TNHP Tanks (12 men)
1 Armoured Command Carrier (6 men)

3 x Tankkijoukku (3 x Tank Platoons – 48 men in total)
4 TNHP Tanks in each Platoon (16 men)

Panssaripataljoona Logistics Company (136 men)

Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, 1 Sgt, 2 Sigs, 2 Clerks, 2 x Drivers, 2 x Trucks)

Maintenance & Repair Joukku (59 men)
6 Mechanical Repair Shop Trucks (3 NCOs, 12 men)
4 Workshop Trucks, 4 x Gunsmiths, 4 x Infrared Equipment Specialists,
1 Radio Repair Truck, 2 Radio Repair Technicians
2 Armoured Recovery Tractors (1 NCO, 3 men)
15 x Tank Transporter Trucks (15 Drivers, 15 men)

sisuworkshoptruck.jpg

Maavoimat Sisu designed and built Workshop Truck.

Supplies Joukku (47 men)
1 x Office Truck, 1 NCO, 1 Sigs, 1 Clerk
4 x Kitchen Trucks, 4 men, 8 Cooks
6 x Ammunition Trucks, 12 men
6 x Fuel Trucks, 12 men
4 x Backpack and Tent Trucks, 4 men
4 x Supplies Trucks, 4 men

Medical Joukku (20 men/women)
HQ (1 NCO, 1 Clerk, 1 Sig, 1 Morgue Attendant)
Treatment Ryhmä I: 1 x Doctor, 1 x Medic Sgt, 4 Medics
Stablisation Ryhmä: 1 x Medic Sgt, 3 Medics
Evacuation Ryhmä: 2 Ambulance Trucks, 2 Drivers, 2 Medics
1 x Backpack, Tent & Medical Supplies Truck, 1 man
Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 1 man + 1 Cook

1 x Tykistöpatteristo (FieldArtillery Battalion) of 12 x 105mm Howitzers) – 565 men

Strength as per diagram below. Note that the Field Artillery Battalion attached to “Verenimijä” was largely mechanized and the veterinary team was in fact replaced by a Vehicle Maintenance Team. Each howitzer was paired with an artillery tractor. Also note that prior to the large scale artillery purchases of 1938 and 1939, the Battalion had been equipped with a mix of the older 76mm Field Guns and the new 105mm Tampella-built Howitzers. The Field Artillery Battalion attached to “Verenimijä” was re-equipped with 105mm Howitzers for all Batteries in mid-1939 – this was consistent with the decision to standardize all Artillery Battalions on one type of gun to simplify ammunition supply.

artbatorg.gif

Artillery Battalion Organisation (above diagram from http://www.winterwar.com)

A later Post will address Artillery in detail. At this stage, suffice it to say that in January of 1933 Finnish State had signed agreements with Bofors which allowed Bofors guns to be license manufactured in Finland. Besides the 37-mm antitank guns and 40-mm and 76mm anti-aircraft guns, this also led to license production of the Bofors 105-mm howitzer. In 1933 Finland had no previous experience in manufacturing of field guns or howitzers. The importance of creating such an industry had been noted in the 1931 Defence Review and in 1933 increased defence funding had allowed establishing a factory for this purpose. A joint venture (50/50) between the Government and Tampella, the new factory had been named Valtion Tykkitehdas (State Artillery Factory) and had been built in the town of Jyväskylä.

Even with considerable assistance from Bofors, it had taken over two years to get the factory up and running and it was 1936 before the first 105mm H/37 Howitzers began to emerge from the production line. Lokomo Works manufactured barrel blanks and breech blanks for these howitzers while Crichton-Vulcan manufactured gun carriages and gun shields. There were many delays in getting started as some of the materials needed were not domestically manufactured and were ordered from Bofors in Sweden while Finnish production facilities were set up or orders placed with Finnish metal working shops. An initial order for 132 Howitzers (enough to equip eleven Artillery Battalions) had been placed in 1933 when work on the factory started, but it was not until 1936 that the first 64 were delivered. A further 70 were delivered in 1937 and a similar number in 1938. Post October 1938, emergency orders resulted in the production line moving to 24/7, although there were some bottlenecks with the supply of parts from third parties – but by October 1939 a further 134 Howitzers had been delivered – with a total of 338 in service as of the outbreak of the Winter War, equipping 28 Artillery Battalions. The Artillery Battalion attached to “Verenimijä”was equipped with 12 of these Howitzers.

105h371.jpg

The Valtion Tykkitehdas 105mm H/37 Howitzer with which the Light Artillery Battalion attached to “Verenimijä” was equipped.

c5a0kodamth.jpg

The Maavoimat equipped itself with a range of artillery tractors over the late 1930’s. Here, a Sisu built Skoda-MTH tractor. These were the artillery tractors with which the Light Artillery Battalion attached to “Verenimijä” was equipped.

Light Anti-Aircraft Company (12 x Hispano-Suiza single-barrelled 20mm AA Guns, 161 men)

Even with the substantial increases in defence expenditure in the 1930’s and the emergency defence budgets of late 1938 amd 1939, the Finnish armed forces were always short of AA guns. There were numerous important industrial and defence locations that needed to be defended from air attack, coastal artillery fortifications and Ilmavoimat airfields needed AA defences and front-line combat units also needed AA defence. Consequently, demand for AA weapons of any type was always fierce.

However, all that said, procurement and manufacture of AA Guns had been included in defence spending and Tampella had a production line manufacturing the Bofors 40mm AA gun under license. As you may recall from an earlier Post, the Suomen Hispano-Suiza factory was established in 1936 as a second joint venture with Tampella, with a firm order placed by the Ilmavoimat to buy Hispano-Suiza Cannon for fighter aircraft. Construction of the factory began almost immediately in Spring 1936, with the first Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon rolling of the production line in July 1937. The new HS.404 auto-cannon was not only considered the best aircraft cannon of its kind, but on evaluation also turned out to be well-suited to the anti-aircraft role. Factory production was ramped up urgently to fulfill Maavoimat orders, which far exceeded orders from the Ilmavoimat in volume.

bundesarchivbild101i219.jpg

Maavoimat HS.404 AA Gun modeled on the German FlaK 30 design (in fact, virtually identical). This was the light AA Gun that equipped almost all Maavoimat Infantry Battalions by the outbreak of the Winter War. Far cheaper than the Bofors 40mm, mobile, relatively easy to transport and with an adequate rate of fire, at the time of the Winter War it was an effective AA Gun. This was the AA Gun that equipped the Light Anti-Aircraft Company attached to “Verenimijä.”

AA Company Headquarters (11 men)

1 x Truck for Company Commander, Driver, Company Sergeant-Major, Clerk, 2 Sigs)
2 x Supply Trucks (2 Drivers)
1 Workshop Truck (Gunsmith, Mechanic, Driver)

3 x Ilmatorjuntapatteri (each Light AA Battery/Platoon, 4 x Truck or Half-Track mounted HS-404 20mm Single-barreled AA Guns, 50 men)

1 x Command Truck (AA Battery CO, NCO, 3 Sigs, Distance Measurer NCO + 1 man)
4 x Trucks, 4 x HS-404 20mm AA-guns (32 men)
1 x Ammunition Truck (NCO, 3 Ammunition Supply men)
2 x Supply Section Trucks (1 Supply NCO, 1 Medical NCO, 2 Cooks, 2 Drivers)

ford039maultier.jpg

Here, Maavoimat Ford Truck converted to Half-Track and fitted with HS.404 single-barrelled 20mmAA Gun

Regimental Supply Company (318 men/women)

Regimental Admin Section (10 men)
2 x Office Trucks, 1 Car (CO, NCO, 8 men)

Transport Platoon (113 men)
Company HQ Ryhmä (CO, CSM, 2 Sgts, 4 Sigs/Messengers, 2 x Drivers, 4 man Security Ryhmä)
40 Trucks, 50 Drivers
2 Workshop Trucks, 4 Mechanics

picture11ow.jpg

Logistical Supply column moving slowly over a log-corduroy road, Summer 1940: photo reproduced from http://www.kevos4.com with permission

Note that “Verenimijä” was heavily over-allocated transport and logistical support units as the unit was highly mobile and intended to be moved rapidly from spot to spot in order to react to the situation as needed. This was not a standard Regimental Combat Group.

Ammunition Supplies Platoon (43 men)
4 NCO, 1 Sigs, 2 Clerks
2 x Gunsmiths, 2 x Infrared Equipment Specialists, 1 Workshop Truck
16 Men, 16 Drivers, 16 Trucks

Fuel Supply Platoon (22 men)
2 NCOs, 2 Sigs, 2 Clerks
8 Men, 8 Drivers, 8 Trucks

General Supplies Platoon (26 men)

Field Kitchen Platoon (26 men)

Field Hospital Unit (102 men/women – all except Doctors are Lotta Svärd personnel)
Admin (2 NCOs, 2 Clerks, 2 Sigs, 2 Morgue Attendants)
4 medical officers, 4 general surgeons
4 Surgical Assistants, 14 Nurses,
40 Medics
Evacuation Ryhmä: 4 Ambulance Trucks, 4 Drivers, 4 Medics
8 x Backpack and Tent Truck, 8 men
4 x Medical Supplies Truck, 4 men
Field Hospital Kitchen Vehicle, Field Kitchen, 2 man + 4 Cooks

Field Post Office (12 Lotta Svärd)
Clothing Depot (16 Lotta Svärd)
Field Laundry (20 Lotta Svärd personnel)

sorting20mail202.jpg

Maavoimat Field Post Office personnel at work (note the proportion of women in the group) – photo reproduced from http://www.kevos4.com with permission

The Tykistöpatteristo (Artillery Battalion) was added to the Regiment only in late 1938. A two week Combined Arms training exercise for the Regiment in spring 1939 identified a number of problems and some serious weaknesses. The first problem was the low number of trained Fire Observers – and that the Fire Observer Teams did not have night-fighting training at the same level as the Jaeger units they accompanied. By late Summer 1940 this had been corrected, with FO Teams up to establishment and training in night-fighting tactics and the use of night-vision equipment. The second major problem was that despite the Maavoimat’s increasing emphasis on combined arms training through the last half of the 1930’ in particular, the “Verenimijä” Jaeger and Panssari officers while understanding the theory had not had the luxury of working with of artillery support and as a result didn't quite understand how to use artillery efficiently in support of their units.

Again, this was something that was corrected through some serious training, particularly after Mobilisation. With the issuing of the new Nokia Combat Radios, communications were also radically improved and fire support requests were in practice met very quickly and accurately. Mobility however was good. The Kenttätykistöpataljoona had been issued with the new Sisu license-built Artillery Tractors together with the new 105mm Howitzers and after mobilization, all transport needs were met by mobilized civilian trucks, mostly the Ford Muuli that was in common use throughout Finland. Heavier vehicles were mobilized from the forestry industry and were generally the Sisu trucks of various models.

The third problem was that many of the support and logistical units were not up to strength as manpower priority during early mobilization had gone to ensuring front-line combat units were fully manned. Most “service units were at 40-50% of strength and this was a major concern, one that “Verenimijä” shared with many other units. This in turn was met by assigning a mix of Lotta Svärd personnel who had volunteered for active servive with the Maavoimat together with young males in the 16-17 year old Classes who had been trained within the Cadet Force. These personnel filled two thirds of the supply and logistics slots (including Drivers and horse-handling personnel), supplied some fifty percent of Signals personnel and manned most of the Field Kitchen and Medical positions – a large contribution to bringing the rear-echelon up to the necessary strengths. That even an “elite” unit continually involved in combat such as “Verenimijä” needed to take these steps is indicative of how stretched Finland was to find the necessary numbers of personnel to ensure all units were able to fight effectively. For Finland, this would indeed be “Total War.”

Next Post: The Most Heavily Armed Pigeons in the World
 
Last edited:
“Verenimijä” Me hallitsemme yötä - a little music to go with the story

“Verenimijä” Me hallitsemme yötä

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPoVmxagvpw

We rule the night, we rule by day
For we believe in time-honoured ways
We fight for truth, that peace may reign
We hold the scales of justice, keepers of the faith

We rule the night ten thousand voices
We rule the night like tameless horses

We rule the night, with fire and flame
Those who resist us lie in our wake
So sound asleep our children dream
Safe in the arms of something far beyond belief

Chrorus:
This flag is battletorn, we rule the night
We conquered by the sword, we rule the night
From the dark to the light we roar like a thunderstorm

We rule the night
Our sacred race was born, we rule the night
Immortal dogs of war, we rule the night
And we stand by the oath we swore
Till the last ones falls, we rule the night

We rule the night, protect our homes
Pure were the righteous against our foes
Our blades are stained, their blood remains
As a remembance of the lives we had to take

To rule the night this rock of ages
We rule the night as battle rages
We rule the night

Repeat Chorus Till fade
 
Finnish language

Liking very much. Couple points about Finnish unit terms. First platoon is joukkue, not joukku. Second, more importantly, term for artillery battalion. Artillery battery is tykistöpatteri in Finnish and term for artillery battalion (multiple batteries) is tykistöpatteristo, patteristo meaning multiple batteries. This same rule applies to anti-air artillery (ilmatorjuntapatteristo), but not to mortars. Mortar units are termed as joukkue and komppania like rest of army ( pataljoona if there ever is mortar battalion).
After giving some not exactly correct information about old Finnish military terms and giving some though, I have suggestion. Instead of inventing new Finnish military terms when there already is one in use, just make summary decision that most modern term is what this atl came up with. We Finnish speakers are who understand them fully and modern terms are natural to us, result of natural process. Inventing new term which feels natural to us would not only take natural speaker, it would take trained linguistic (if it would be possible at all). This is very detailed timeline, but inventing new Finnish words is little too ambitious.
 
Liking very much. Couple points about Finnish unit terms. First platoon is joukkue, not joukku. Second, more importantly, term for artillery battalion. Artillery battery is tykistöpatteri in Finnish and term for artillery battalion (multiple batteries) is tykistöpatteristo, patteristo meaning multiple batteries. This same rule applies to anti-air artillery (ilmatorjuntapatteristo), but not to mortars. Mortar units are termed as joukkue and komppania like rest of army ( pataljoona if there ever is mortar battalion)..

Kiitos Mikael, I see my mistake now. I picked up the wrong word from the site I was using as a reference - I used Regiment when I should have used Battalion. Going to go back and correct both that and joukku/joukkue :eek:

Finnish field artillery mobilised for Winter War had basic unit types:
Field Artillery Regiment / Kenttätykistörykmentti / KTR
Heavy Artillery Battalion / Raskas Patteristo / Rask.Psto
Light Artillery Battalion is Tykistöpatteristo
Separate Artillery Battery / Erillinen Patteri / Er.Ptri

After giving some not exactly correct information about old Finnish military terms and giving some though, I have suggestion. Instead of inventing new Finnish military terms when there already is one in use, just make summary decision that most modern term is what this atl came up with. We Finnish speakers are who understand them fully and modern terms are natural to us, result of natural process. Inventing new term which feels natural to us would not only take natural speaker, it would take trained linguistic (if it would be possible at all). This is very detailed timeline, but inventing new Finnish words is little too ambitious.

"inventing new Finnish words" is usually my bad attempts at translating into Finnish rather than linguistic invention. But yes, great suggestion. Thx - Finns will forgive and no-one else will know the difference :eek:

Cheers........Nigel
 
What's the status of night aviation, especially tactical night bombing?
With IR searchlights to illuminate a target and nightvision devices it could be possible.
 
Top