What If - Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?
- Thread starter CanKiwi
- Start date
Following the plan, I have two more posts on tanks - one on Soviet, the other on Czech, and then it gets into the establishment, growth and equipment of the Finnish Armoured units.....which will likely be two or three posts - all of which build on the previous posts on tanks (the "history lesson"). Work on these is going slowly alas due to work.... that darned thing that interferes with the truely enjoyable aspects of life but pays the bills....
The european map doesn't change at all as of early 1939 and is as it was in real history. Right now, this is all on the (alternative) Finland's military organisation as a lead in to the start of the Winter War.
When do you think you're going to get around to the firearms - I'm really interested in hearing about the Lahti SLR's and the grenade launchers!
I have a writeup on those drafted out, wanted to finish the posts on tanks and the Panssaaridivisoona first and also have some aircraft stuff to post. Trying to keep things grouped rather than going all over the map - done enough of that already.
I have a writeup on those drafted out, wanted to finish the posts on tanks and the Panssaaridivisoona first and also have some aircraft stuff to post. Trying to keep things grouped rather than going all over the map - done enough of that already.
Cool, cool. I've always been fascinated by what could have been done with firearms in this era. Also, are the SLR's Assault rifles or Battle rifles?
Lahti SLR's and the grenade launchers!
Here you go. This is very much a rough draft. Call it a brain fart if you will. Hasn't been tweaked, rewritten or polished. I'd hesitate to call it a draft but given the lack of time, here you go and if anyone wants to take it and rewrite it, have at it...... and I haven't even looked at rounds, calibre and all of those fun details. I think the basic premise is that the LS-SLR 7.62 uses the same round as the Moisin-Nagant but..... like I said, brain fart coming ....
*************************************************************
Small Arms, Machineguns and Mines: The Best Small Arms in the World
Finland’s greatest military assets were its tough skilled outdoorsman citizen-soldiers, instilled with the belief that "One Finn is equal to Twenty Russians" and Finnish “Sisu.” In the historical Winter War, the Finnish Army was under-resourced and ill-equipped. While the primary infantry weapon, the Moison-Nagant, was an excellent rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a (relatively) slow rate of fire. The Finnish Army was under equipped wth automatic weapons (while the Sumoi machinepistol was issued, it was available only in low numbers) and both anti-tank guns, mortars and artillery were either in short supply or non-existent. In addition, ammunition supplies were limited and production was insufficient to meet combat needs. This severely limited the Finnish Army’s options in the historical War.
In this alternative scenario, Finland rectifies these shortfalls over the decade of the 1930’s. From the 1931 Defense Review on, the Finnish Military (with Government support and the necessary budgetary provisions) worked hard, within the financial constraints of being a small country with a limited budget, to provide their soldiers with the best possible small arms for use in Finnish conditions and to meet the needs of what would be a heavily outnumbered Army in the event of any war with the Soviet Union. Prior to the Army’s reorganization and the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, Finnish soldiers were armed primarily with bolt-action rifles – the Moison-Nagant Rifle – and heavy machineguns (the Maxim). Anti-tank weaponry was non-existent, Mortars and Anti-Aircraft Guns were available only in token numbers, Artillery was in short supply and much that was available was antiquated, ammunition stocks for all weapons were small and other infantry support weapons were almost non-existent.
With limited orders from the military, Finnish industry was incapable of producing large quantities of weapons or munitions and expansion of the manufacturing capacity for such items takes years rather than months. Thus, when the real Winter War actually broke out, Finland’s industrial capacity was incapable of rapid expansion, and cut off as they were from access to major manufacturing countries, rapid access to purchased equipment was impossible. The Suomi machinepistol was a typical example – an excellent weapon, probably the best machinepistol in the world, it was also very poorly suited for wartime mass-production, with major components being milled individually rather than stamped or pressed. At the outbreak of the Winter War, pehrhaps 50-60 per day could be manufactured, and this was the maximum production level which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi m/31) succeeded in achieving. This came to about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. In 1944 Tikkakoski calculated targets for production of the M/44 submachinegun - the estimated production rate (with production of Suomi M/31 running concurrently) for large-scale production was 50,000 in 14 months.
Other weapons were designed and produced too late to be of any real value. The Lahti L-39 20mm Anti-tank rifle being another case in point. An excellent weapon for 1939, it was a case of too little, too late. In sufficient quantity, in the Winter War this could have been a decisive weapon. As it was, the Finnish Army suffered severe and unnecessary casualties as a result of lacking the appropriate weapons and also due to ammunition shortages. Where the right weapons and sufficient ammunition was available, the Finnish Army wrought miracles. In some cases, individual Finnish soldiers killed literally 80-100 Russian soldiers each in single engagements. Numbers that even their own officers found it difficult to believe until they saw the evidence with their own eyes.
One of the central premise’s of this alternative history scenario is that, from 1931 on, the Finnish Government spends significantly larger amounts on defense (which is possible for two reasons – a stronger economy with a GDP approximately double the historical, and a firm commitment to increased defence spending), increasing significantly the numbers and quality (via training) of soldiers available and also carrying out an on-going and large-scale re-equipment program. As part of the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, and driven by field exercises and the development of indvidual and unit tactics and combat techniques suited to Finnish terrain and the Finnish soldier, a decision was made that the firepower of infantry units and of individual soldiers needed to be substantially upgraded.
Five types of weapons were identifed as necessary. An individual rifle capable of firing in semi-automatic and, perhaps optionally, automatic mode, a “submachine gun” type weapon capable of a high rate of rapid fire and effective at shorter ranges, a General Purpose Machinegun - a new, lighter and more infantry-portable Machinegun to replace the Maxim, a “light” man-portable Anti-Tank Rifle and lastly, some sort of weapon for projecting grenades out further than could be achieved by hand (but lighter than a conventional mortar, by preference being man-portable. In this selection of weapons, the Finnish Army would be decades ahead of its opponents and of most other, if not all other, armies in the world. The remainder of this section goes on to detail these weapons, their characteristics and their introduction into the Finnish Army and summarises their impact in the Winter War.
To meet these weapons requirements, the Finnish Army called on Finland’s own self-educated genius, Aimo Johannes Lahti, whom we have already taken a brief look at when we covered the Mosin-Nagant upgrade programe of the 1920’s.
The Moisin-Nagant Replacement – the Lahti-Saloranta Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm (LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm)
In 1931, as part of the Defence Review, the need for a semi-automatic self-loading Rifle with a large magazine capacity for the front-Line infantry was identified as a critical need. The Defence Review group responsible for infantry firearms spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this recommendation, with some heated arguments both for and against. The “against” school
The “for” school pointed out that while the bolt-action Moison-Nagant was a reliable rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a relatively slow rate of fire and a small magazine capacity (x rounds) and something in between this and a machine-gun but with greater range and better long-distance accuracy than a submachinegun was needed by the Finnish Army to offset the simple mathematics imposed by the large disparity in numbers with the Red Army that could be expected in any war. The “for” school also pointed back to the experiences of WW1 and the
In late 1932, Mannerheim appointed Arvo Saloranta to head a team tasked with coming up with a replacement Infantry Rifle, with their first task being to examine currently available military rifles. One of the weapons that came to their attention was the Polish Army’s Fabrique Nationale (FN) wz. 1928 light machine gun chambered to the 7.92x57mm Mauser round. In 1920, the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN) had acquired the sales and production rights to the BAR series of firearms in Europe from Colt. The wz 1928 was based on this weapon, and FN’s first order was the Polish order for 10,000 7.92-mm light machinegun wz.28, the contract for which was signed in December of 1927. The version delivered to Poland was based on the "R 75" commercial version, which Colt had introduced in 1925.
The Polish wz. 1928 variant.
Changes to the base design included a pistol grip, different type of bipod, open-type V-notch rear sight and a slightly longer barrel. Subsequent rifles were assembled locally in Poland under license by the State Rifle Factory (Państwowa Fabryka Karabinów) in Warsaw. The wz. 1928 was accepted into service with the Polish Army in 1927 under the formal name 7,92 mm rkm Browning wz. 1928 (“7.92 mm Browning hand-held machine gun model 1928”) and – until the outbreak of World War II – was the primary light support weapon of Polish infantry and cavalry formations (in 1939 Poland had a total of approx. 20,000 wz. 1928 rifles in service). Additional detail modifications were introduced on the production line. Among them was the replacement of the iron sights with a smaller version and reshaping the butt to a fish tail.
The Finnish Army bought a small number of these light machineguns in 1933 from Poland, and after further evaluation, purchased a manufacturing license from Fabrique Nationale.. Aimo Lahti and Arvo Salorante were personally tasked by Mannerheim with taking the weapon and using it as the basis for designing a semi-automatic self-loading rifle for the Finnish Army infantryman. Both Lahti and Soloranta had experimented with a number of recoil-operated rifle designs in the early 1930’s and these experiements laid the basis for a gas-operated semiautomatic rifle. The prototype was chambered to the standard 7.62mm round used for the Moisin-Nagant Rifle, thus ensuring compatibility. Lahti also redesigned the whole receiver for the SLR, making disassembling and reassembling the weapon much easier. Other notable improvements introduced by Lahti were the carrying handle (the earlier Polish version had none) and the replacement of the fixed rear sight with a graduated flip sight. The wooden butt-stock was modified to include the unique feature of a Nokia designed and manufacture replaceable rubber butt-pad (which significantly reduced felt recoil), available in several different sizes to accommodate an individual shooter's "length of pull."A further modification was an integral "fold-away" trigger guard with a modified pistol grip for winter use.
The 20 round box magazine was retained. However, in early testing, the front lug of the magazine (where it locks up into the receiver when the magazine is properly inserted front end first) proved to be a weak feature which caused a large number of malfunctions. (this front lug was merely punched out of the sheet metal of the magazine body). Saloranta solved this problem by installing a separate beefed-up front lug. Basic specifications were a weight of 9.8 lb, a length of 43 in, barrel length of 21 in., a maximum rate of fire when used in automatic mode of 650 rounds per minute with an effective range of 1,500 feet (500 meters). With these features the LS-SLR was without doubt the most advanced Infantry Rifle existing in military use when World War 2 began. A small run of prototypes was produced in early 1935, with testing conducted through the spring and summer of the same year. The end result was that the new Rifle was accepted by the Finnish Ordanance Board in October 1935 as the replacement for the Moisin-Nagant, designated the LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm) and an initial order was placed with VKT (the State Rifle Factory) for a series of large-scale production runs sufficient to fully re-equip the entire combat branch of the Finnish Army over a ten year timeframe.
The replacement program was planned as a ten-year effort, with VKT to manufacture 50,000 Rifles per year starting in 1936. This production target was not met in 1936, with initial difficulties with the production line resulting in only 30,000 Rifles being produced, but the target was met in 1937. In 1938, production was doubled after the Munich Crisi as VKT expanded manufacturing lines and moved to 24/7 manufacturing, running 3 shifts and working 7 days per week, with 70,000 Rifles produced. In 1939, running at full capacity on a 24/7 basis, VKT managed to produce 120,000 Rifles, meaning that by the time the Winter War broke out some 270,000 Rifles had been delivered, enough to equip a majority of the front-line combat infantry (Mosin-Nagant Rifles were at this stage largely relegated to use by rear-echelon, rear-area and support troops, the Home Guard and Boy-Soldiers. A limited number of the Finnish Manufactured Moisin-Nagant’s were retained within Infantry units as Bolt-Action Sniper Rifles fitted with Sniper Scopes. Front line Snipers often prefered the old Moisin-Nagant rather than the LS-SLR Sniper variant as a sniper rifle – the Finnish Army left the choice of weapon up to the individual sniper.
LS-SLR/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle 1935 7.62mm) – note the many similarities to the 1939 FN D light machinegun below (Picture below taken in Rannikkotykistömuseo) used by the Finnish Army during the (actual) Continuation War.
The LS-SLR/M/35 was a gas-operated semi-automatic which fired from the closed-bolt position in the semi--auto mode. It had an operator-adjustable gas regulator which worked on the "exhaust" principle. Under ideal conditions the major portion of the gas was passed The gas regulator offered firing with the lowest possible recoil combined with the ability to direct more gas into the system under adverse conditions or in case of fouling. In fully-automatic mode, however, the shooter receives considerable abuse from recoil, and the weapon climbs off-target quickly, making automatic fire only of marginal effectiveness .
The receivers were forged and milled with a projected lifespan of 80,000 rounds. The trigger mechanism was ingenious and well-designed. One disadvantage of the LS-SLR was the amount of work which went into machining the complex receiver (rather than the quicker and more cost effective stamping or casting techniques), bolt and bolt carrier. Additionally, the movement of the tilting bolt mechanism tended to return differently with each shot, affecting inherent accuracy of the weapon.
The LS-SLR/35 was a comfortable rifle to shoot and it handled well. The adjustable gas system, placement of the gas cylinder above the barrel, and alignment of the stock with the barrel axis all reduced the tendency of the weapon to climb in rapid semiauto fire. Although the rear sight had a tendancy to wobble, and many soldiers found the rear peep too close to the eye, the LS-SLR was capable of splendid accuracy with iron sights when fired by a well-trained shooter. Well-built, rugged, handsomely finished for a military rifle, and adequately reliable except under the most severe sand and dust conditions, the LS-SLR soon won an excellent and well deserved reputation with the Finnish soldier.
During early trials, it was soon determined that firing the LS-SLR in the full-auto mode was best restricted to only the most experienced soldiers who could fire in two to three-round bursts at extremely short distances. At ranges of 200 meters or more, employing an unsupported kneeling or sitting position, the second and third rounds in the burst usually hit at least 10 meters above and to the right of the first shot. Full-auto fire offhand with an 8- to 10-pound rifle in caliber 7.92mm was strictly an emergency procedure. In point of fact, after initial trials with the prototypes, the Finnish Army removed the selective-fire option entirely. An interesting variation that occurred during the Winter War was the field modification of LS-SLR rifles by soldiers for better handling. Nicknamed "The Bitch", these rifles were field modified, with their barrels cut off immediately in front of the gas block, and the unofficial permanent conversion to full-auto capability by simply filing down the selector.
From 1938 on, an optical sight was manufactured for the LS-SLR. Early testing with optical sights had resulted in the sights failing miserably to hold zero.. Bench-rest groups fired with scopes exhibited as much as 12 inches in vertical dispersion at 100 meters. This was completely unacceptable. The fault lay not in the optics, but in the use of the sheet-metal receiver cover as a mount. The thin receiver cover simply bent and twisted too much during the firing sequence. The solution was a rigid mount that completely replaced the original receiver cover. Following this modification, the scopes worked satisfactorily. Production runs from 1938 on included this new mount as standard. The standard optical scope made available to non-sniper qualified soldiers who achieved “marksman” grading were the 4x
During the Winter War, the LS-SLR/M/35 semi-automatic rifle with 20 round magazines was the standard infantry platoon weapon, providing an infantry unit with a solid base of accurate, rapid and highly effective firepower. The 4x optical sights and high standard of marksmanship training of the average Finnish soldier enhanced the effectiveness of this weapon and extended the range for accurate shooting outwards considerably. In conjunction with the standard Suomi M/31 submachineguns, LS-41 Light Machineguns and the LS-39 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles (as well as the grenades, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines with which each platoon was equipped), as well as the high level of tactical training and physical fitness, the average Finnish infantry platoon of late 1939 was an outstandingly dangerous opponent and, by the standards of other European Armies, out in front in a class of their own.
Alternative Scenario - Suomi M/31
In this alternative, the Finnish Army recognises the effectiveness of rhe Suomi M/31 from the early trials and testing. Following a series of exercises, it was decided to integrate the Sumoi M/1931 into the Finnish Armies TOE at a ratio of 2 M/31’s to each Infantry Section. Large scale production commenced in 1934, with 11,475 being produced in that year, 13,075 in 1935, approximately 16,000 in 1936 and 1937 and 20,000 per year in 1938 through to 1939 – a total of approximately 96,000 were in service with the Finnish Army at the time war broke out in late 1939.
What made the M/31 exceptional was the high quality of manufacturing, its high volume ammunition feed system and its accuracy. However, while it was a very good weapon, it was also poorly suited for wartime mass-production as it was slow and complicated to manufacture. The maximum production level, which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi M/31) succeeded in achieving was about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. This was recognized as a limitation and in 1938, a newer version, the M/31B (aka the M/42 from actual history) was introduced. This resulted in a somewhat faster manufacturing processing, with approximately 1,900 per month being manufactured from 1938 on.
The standard magazines were the 20 and 50-round clips and the 70-round drum. The 50-round clips were somewhat unreliable and prone to cause jamming problems and had mostly been phased out by 1939.
To this end, the TOE was established as two Suomi M/1931’s and one LMG per Section (six and three per Platoon respectively).
General Purpose Machinegun L-41 7.62mm "Sampo": (designation needs to be changed btw
By 1934, the Finnish military had come to conclusion that the Maxim machineguns were both very heavy and structurally complicated. The heavy weight made using them in mobile operations difficult, as they were slow to move while the structural complexity increased their unreliability and made them more difficult to use. Organisationally, they were allocated to Battalion Machinegun Companies, which, as part of the reorganisation of the early 1930’s, the Finnish Army was doing away with. The intention was to allocate machineguns to Infantry Sections and Platoons, and that these would be lighter and much more portable than the Maxims. It was also intended that the new Section Machinegun would have a crew of only two soldiers, and that the ammunition would be the same calibre as the standard Infantry Assault Rifle which was to be introduced.
In late 1934, Aimo Lahti was asked to design a new Section General Purpose Machinegun. The gun was to be 7.62mm and belt fed, lightweight and onr of the key objectives was that it be lightweight, simple to maintain and highly reliable in the field. In addition, the Finnish Army evaluated a number of foreign designs, including the German MG34. Like all competent Armed Forces everywhere and, in the 1930’s perhaps even more than most, the Finnish Armed Forces observed development of new military equipment abroad. In 1934 the Finns had noted the introduction of the new belt-fed MG-34 machinegun to German use. The MG34 was the first modern general purpose machine gun. Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG34 could fire for much longer periods of time than conventional weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle or Bren, while being much lighter than crew-served weapons like the Vickers machine gun. The weapon was also quite versatile, able to be fed from drums or belts, and mounted on bipods, heavy tripods, or various pintle mounts for armored vehicles. It even became a primary defensive gun for the Luftwaffe, in its MG81 form. However, it did have its drawbacks, such as sensitivity to dust and comparatively expensive production. At the time it was introduced it had a number of advanced features and the general purpose machine gun concept that it aspired to was an influential one. However the MG34 was also expensive, both in terms of construction and the raw materials needed (49 kg (108 lb) of steel and its manufacture was too time-consuming to be built in the numbers required for the ever-expanding Finnish armed forces.
However, the Finnish Army did acquire half a dozen MG34’s for evaluation, with two being passed to Lahti for “reverse engineering.” In response to the Army request, Lahti designed the L-xx "Sampo" in late 1934. A number of design features from the MG34 were incorporated into the L-41 design, as were a number of improvements that were suggested from Lahti’s examination of the weapon. Getting the weapon to the protoype stage took time – the reason largely being the ammunition the Finnish military was using - designing a reliable belt-fed weapon that uses rimmed ammunition (such as the 7.62 mm x 54R used by Finnish military) while keeping the weight reasonable is much more difficult than designing a weapon using non-rimmed ammunition. The feeding process for rimmed ammunition tends to be more complicated than for non-rimmed. Basically this is because rimmed ammunition needs to be first pulled off the belt before it can be fed into the cartridge chamber while non-rimmed ammunition can be fed directly into the cartridge chamber while on the belt.
The first prototype of the belt-fed L-41 Sampo was finished in early 1935 and then tested. This first prototype version was a true general purpose machinegun, with a rifle-like butt, a pistol handle and a new tripod designed specially for the weapon. A bipod for light machinegun use was also included as standard equipment. The weapon was gas-action with an air-cooled barrel. In addition it had an adjustable rate of fire. In the first tests in late 1935, the steel used in the lock switches proved to be too soft and jammed the lock of each weapon during test firing. Once these parts were replaced with new ones that had been properly heat-treated the weapons successfully passed the tests. Suggested improvements included a redesign of the barrel, allowing replacing of the barrel in only few seconds. One handicap (if considered as such) was the very high rate of fire possibe – the maximun cyclic rate was some 1,000 shots/minute. A rate of fire this high overheated the barrel quickly and also wore them out very fast, so frequent changing of barrel was necessary during combat.However, the ability to adjust the rate of fire downwards was seen as a major plus, particularly where ammunition supply was restricted. Test reports from the troops field-testing the prototypes were mainly positive. The field tests revealed many problems, but nothing that could not be fixed.
Basically the troops considered the L-41 a good weapon in offensive use, but not particularly good when used in static defensive positions. This was not terribly surprising, as static defensive use was exactly where Maxim machineguns excelled. Other problems the early tests revealed included reliability problems with mixed/older ammunition, heated parts sticking, which made quickly replacing barrel and also carrying the weapon difficult, the tripod was not easy to put into the firing position and the anti-aircraft tripod was too fragile, and structural weaknesses in the recoil-spring and bolt parts. These were all problems which were rectified realtively easily and quickly for the second protype version. VKT also brought in a German specialist in the technology of mass production to work with Lahti and VKT on the manufacturing process and how this impacted the design. The second prototype was finished in the early 1936, with fine-tuning work on improvements continued until March - April of 1936.
The Finnish Army ordered a test series of 50 weapons in January of 1936, but because of these improvements the test series was not delivered until the summer of 1936. The manufacturer of the field test series was VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). These were issued to Army units for field tests immediately. As usual, the Army Ordnance Department had asked feedback in the form of test reports from the units to which the weapons of field test series were issued The feedback from Finnish field tests of the second protoype vesion was received in October of 1936 and proved exceptionally positive. Finnish Army planning was to replace the Maxim medium machineguns used by heavy machinegun companies in infantry units with the new weapon, and relegate the Maxim’s to fixed defensive positions on the Mannerheim and VKT Lines as well as in Coastal Defenses.
Plans made by Weapons HQ of the Finnish Army General Headquarters required all Infantry Units to be issued with the new general purpose machinegun. The planed TOE was for 10 of the new Machineguns for each Infantry Company, which required a total of xxxx of these weapons. Marshal Mannerheim approved the purchase of these machineguns on the 29th of December 1936 and a week later, on the 8th of January 1937, Major General Svanström (Head of Weapons HQ in Finnish Army GHQ) placed the initial order with VKT.
The final prototype design required considerably less tooling and was much simpler to build than the first version - it took 75 man hours to complete the new gun as opposed to 150 man hours for the first version (a 50% reduction in work). Estimated prices mentioned in an offer sent by VKT to the Army Ordnance Department on the 11th of November 1936 were for a 4,360 Finnish marks Price per Weapon for 10,000 weapons or more. Specifications were as follows:
Calibre: 7,62 mm x 54 R
Length: 1325 mm
Barrel length: 605 mm
Weight: 14,9 kg
Fire-rate: 600 - 1000/minute (adjustable)
Ammunition belt: 200-round continuous metal belt m/32, weight 2,6 kg fully loaded and 1,3 kg empty
Mount: Tripod, weight 16 kg
From a technical and manufacturing viewpoint the L-41 Sampo marked considerable progress and proved highly suitable for mass-production. A large percentage of the parts used were stamped and punched, while the basic structure was also quite simple, thus reducing production costs, time needed for manufacturing and the amount of materials needed considerably. VKT had the prototype ready and tested ready for mass-production, but in practice this was to prove much more difficult than anticipated. Rather ironically, modern and cost-effective manufacturing methods proved difficult for Finnish industry. Many of the most important parts of the L-41 (like the receiver) were stamped and/or punched and thus far VKT had manufactured receivers only by milling (machining) them. VKT lacked tools and machinery for this kind of work and building or acquiring them was the source of an unexpected delay..
For this reason VKT estimated that starting the mass-production might take about a year (in other words: until December of 1937). Considering this and the number (of L-41 machineguns) the Finnish Army needed, VKT suggested acquiring stamped parts needed for these weapons from Germany or Sweden. While manufacturing the quantities the Finns wanted was a very large work for the Finnish armaments industry, it was still a small amount for German manufacturers. The purchase from Germany was approved almost immediately, with approximately two years supply of stamped parts orders, giving VKT the necessary lead time to set up their own stamping and punching machinery (which they managed to do in 10 months). Production immediately moved to 24/7 in an attenpt to meet the Finnish Army’s needs. This was successful, and by the outbreak of the Winter War in late 1939, almost all Finnish Army units were fully equipped with the new machinegun, with production actually increasing from early 1939 on.
As the L-41 was phased in, the heavy machinegun companies were phased out and the Maxim’s relegated to fixed defensive positions. This was where they excelled. Their heavy weight (weapon + tripod combination was over 20 kg) made them less than mobile. In defensive warfare beating the capability of water-cooled Maxim just to keep going belt after belt would have been practically impossible for any air-cooled machinegun, so as long as there was no need for moving the machineguns to new place this would have been the area where Maxim ruled.
By way of contrast, the L-41 gave infantry units hugely emhanced firepweor was that was also considerably more mobile. This increased mobility allowed machineguns to be moved faster and more easily from one place to another, so the machineguns were able to move with the infantry and be available immediately they were needed. The L-41 proved exceptionally useful, reliable and robust weapon in the Winter War battlefields. The Finnish military went on to use the L-41 in many roles, including light machinegun (with bipod only), heavy machinegun (with tripod) and anti-aircraft weapon. It proved to be one of the most successful machineguns ever and continued to see plenty of use after World War 2. Indeed, Finland exported numbers of this weapon to Sweden during the Second World War, where it went on to become standard equipment for the Swedish Army.
20mm Panssarintorjunta (Anti-tank) Rifle L-39 “Norsupyssy" (Elephant Gun)
One of the early questions that was addressed in the equipment reviews of 1931/32 was that of a suitable man-portable light anti-tank rifle. There was no question that such a weapon was needed as a counter to the growing Soviet tank threat. The initial debate that ocurred was over the calibre of the weapon. Some officers wanted 12,7 mm weapons, some wanted 13.2 mm weapons and some (including Lahti) wanted 20 mm weapons. The initial problem with accepting a 20-mm weapon early on seems to have been the slow muzzle velocity of then-existing 20-mm ammunition. No 12.7mm weapons were evaluated but a number of 13.2 mm calibre weapons were tested starting in 1932. Lahti didn't like either calibre, as he thought both had too little armour-penetration and he was also unhappy with that fact that neither calibre had tracer ammunition available.
At this stage, Lahti also managed to get himself into an argument with Colonel Raatikainen of the Finnish Army’s Weapons Design Committee regaring a mount for the new AT-Rifle. Raatikainen wanted a mount similar to the Germans, suitable for both AA- and AT-shooting. Lahti considered this unsuitable for AT-use. Another argument surfaced as Raatikainen and Saario wanted the Swiss 20mm Oerlikon gun to be accepted (suspicions existed about Raatikainen and Saario representing Oerlikon and having their own financial interests in this matter). Lahti was also very much against this porposal as the Oerlikon 20mm gun had poor armour-penetration capability.
Artillery Generals Nenonen and Svanström also joined the argument, demanding a 20 mm AT-rifle capable of penetrating 30 mm of armour. Live fire tests in the summer of 1933 finally proved that 20 mm was much more effective then 13.2 mm and a decision to choose 20 mm as the calibre for the Finnish Army’s AT-rifle was made in late 1933. Lahti was given the go-ahead in October 1933 and within three weeks he had designed the weapon. Two prototypes were immediately made and tested. In the spring of 1934, these prototypes easily won tests against the 13mm weapons available On. 6th of September 1934 the new 20 mm Lahtu Anti-tank Rifle was accepted into the Finnish Army equipment list as the L-39.
The L-39 was a gas-action semiautomatic, but it wasn't a pure semiautomatic in the common sense meaning of the term. When a shot was fired and the bolt retreated back, it didn't return forward for the next shot until \released using a switch located on the front part of the weapons pistol grip. Releasing the bolt usually took place just after firing the shot as it reduced the feel of the recoil. The L-39’s Loading Mechanism was a crank-like handle located on the right-hand side of the weapon. The weapon fired from a closed bolt. Presumably the bolt not returning forward had been added to improve cooling. The rifle had both a bipod and a muzzle brake. The gas getting to the gas-action mechanism was adjustable (four settings: 1.5, 1.8, 2.2 and 2.5 indicated the diameter of the hole to gas-action mechanism). Magazines of the weapon were not exactly light – an empty magazine weighed 3.37-kg and a fully loaded magazine weighed 6.7-kg. An experienced shooter could achieve a rate of fire as high as 15 shots/minute. The protective arch in front of the trigger guard was there for a good reason - the weapon extracted its used (heavy and hot) cartridge cases below the weapon just in front of it. Sights were fully adjustable with rear sight settings from 200 to 1400 meters. Because of the magazine located on top the weapon the sights were located on the left side of the weapon. Typical equipment included four magazine pouches, each containing two magazines.
At this point, the Finnish Army also ordered 20 mm antiaircraft guns, and it was decided to manufacture all further 20 mm antitank rifles in 20 mm x 138 B (Rheinmetall-Borsig / Solothurn long) calibre (to allow the same ammunition to be used in both AA-guns and the AT-rifle). This obviously made ammunition supply easier, since this calibre ammunition was manufactured in Germany and Italy, while 20mmx113 would have been unique to Finland. However, this was not the only reason. The propellant charge which VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory, located in the town of Jyväskylä) wanted to use to reach the requested muzzle velocity could not be contained in 20mm x 113 cartridge case, however the 20mm x 138B cartridge case was large enough
Ammunition types used included AP, AP-T, APHE-T, HE-T and phosphorous shells. AP was most plentiful of ammunition types but not very suitable to some of the later uses for L-39. At the same time AP-T and APHE-T projectiles fired by these weapons were dangerous to even well-armoured ground attack aircraft. Well placed shots of HE and phosphorous shells hitting bunker vision slots could be used to keep enemy infantry pinned down during trench war period, phosphorous shells could also be used for setting forest fires during summer-time. However availability of HE, APHE-tracer and phosphorous shells for infantry used was typically more limited as these ammunition types were mostly used with antiaircraft-guns. Ammunition was manufactured by VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). Domestic 20mm x 138B cartridge cases were manufactured by Oy Tikkakoski Ab and Oy Sytytin.
The first order, for 2,000 AT-rifles, was placed in September 1933, with VKT ramping up a separate production line over late 1933 / the first half of 1934. Meanwhile, the reorganisation and table of equipment planning for the Finnish Army had been completed, with planned TOE being 4 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles for every Infantry Company (approx. 20 per Battalion, 70 per Regiment, 220 per Division). With the reorganised and greatly enlarged Army, 10,000 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles were needed.In the meantime, further trials and exercises had determined that, with it’s AP and HE ammunition, the LT-39 was effective not just against Armoured Vehicles but also against targets such as bunker loopholes and landing craft up to 500 - 600 meter distance as well as for long-range sniping (for which a telescopic sight was introduced from 1937 on). Against heavier tanks, it proved useful against several weak spots, such as open top hatches, especially with phosphorus ammunition). It was even able to damage tank turrets and pin them to stop traversal of the cannon. In further trials, it was found that when placed on an improvised anti-aircraft mount it presented a threat to ground-attack aircraft pilots. Finnish troops almost immediately nicknamed the weapon "norsupyssy" (=elephant gun) and the weapon gained a reputation for its accuracy and effectiveness right from it’s introduction on.
The first production series of 2,000 L-39’s was finished by the 10th of April 1936. Production stepped up in 1936, with approximately 2,000 L-39’s per year being manufactured. By 1939, all Finnish Army Field Infantry Divisions were fully equipped up to the TOE strength, and a limited number of Training and War Reserve weapons were available and stockpiled. 1940 production was sufficient to replace combat losses and writeoffs, as well as add to the War Reserve stockpile. The weapon proved highly effective in the Winter War, able to penetrate the armor of all but the heaviest Soviet tanks. And even those it could damage when aimed at weakpoints. It was also used heavily as a long range sniper rifle and for bunker-busting as the Finnish Army moved onto the offensive. One weakness turned out to be the size and weight - it was just too large and heavy for one man to carry it alone long distances, but this was not a major problem.
Users commented that the L-39 was heavy and difficult to move in the battlefield. Even its magazine weighed almost two kilograms more than the Finnish Suomi M-31 submachine gun. The whole weapon weighed some 50 kilograms and it was usually towed by reindeer or horses, but could be carried by several men. In the field, a two man team was assigned to the gun to move and fire it. During winter, a sledge was used, while on road marches a vehicle was used if available.
Single Shot Grenade Launcher
In late 1933, the Finnish Army’s Ordanance Department had also tasked Aimo Lahti with a research contract for a prototype Single Shot portable grenade launcher. The broad concept was to come up with a lightweight portable launcher that could be easily carried by a single soldier in addition to his normal equipment and rifle and which would provide the infantry with a means of projecting out anti-personnel grenades well beyond throwing distance and obviate the need to call in artillery or mortar support where not necessary. The project was nicknamed “Platoon Artillery.”
With his usual flair for weapons design, Lahti took the concept and, within weeks, had designed and built an initial prototype. This closely resembled a sawn-off shotgun with an extra-large calibre of 50mm. It was basically a single-shot, break-open, shoulder-fired weapon, fairly lightweight and with a slow rate of fire (each round needed to be individually loaded). Designing and manufacturing grenade rounds to work with the launcher was a bigger challenge, and a satisfactory round was finally prototyped only in late 1934. Testing took place over the first quarter of 1935, with satisfactory results, and the Grenade Launcher was ordered into production in mid-1935, with an initial TOE of ten Grenade Launchers per Infantry Platoon (one for each of the Nine Infantry Squads in a Platoon and one within the Platoon Command Group). The Grenade Launcher was designated the M/35 and, being easy to manufacture and also cheap, was mass-produced in short order, with all units fully equipped by mid 1938.
Visibly, the M/35 grenade launcher resembled nothing so much as a large bore, break-action, sawn-off shotgun, and was very simple in design, having only five parts: a receiver group, a fore-end assembly, a barrel group, a sight assembly, and a stock. The fore-end assembly beded the barrel to the receiver. The stock wa made out of wood. A rubber pad was fixed to the shoulder stock to absorb some of the recoil. The front sight was a fixed blade. The rear sight was a folding ladder-style leaf-type sight. When folded, the leaf sight acted as a fixed sight for close range. A grenadier could also simply point and shoot with a high degree of accuracy. When unfolded, the leaf-type sight could be adjusted for ranges from 75-meters out to 375-meters, in 25-meters increments. Specifications were a weight of 6.45lb loaded (5.95lb empty), a length of 28.78in, barrel length of 14in., a rate of fire of 6 rounds/min, an effective range of 350m, and breech loaded. Each round weighed approximately 0.5lbs. A grenadier typically carried a load of 40 rounds (sometimes more) in addition to their standard equipment and their LS-SLR.
The weapon was easy to operate. To load, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch on the receiver group to the right. Gravity pulledl down the barrel, breaking it open, and exposing the breech. The hammer was cocked when the breech was opened. A round could then be loaded. The break action was then closed manually. Closing the breech caused the barrel locking latch to return to center. To fire, the grenadier pushed the safety forward, and pulled the trigger. To unload, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch to the right and opened the breech. The extractor pushed the case out, allowing the grenadier to grasp it and remove it. If a soldier was wearing gloves for winter operations, the trigger guard could be rotated to the left or right.
Three different ammunition types were produced for the M/35. Explosive, Smoke and Illumination. The 50 mm HE (high explosive) grenades fired from the M/35 travelled at a muzzle velocity of 75 meters per second. The grenade contained enough explosive to produce over 300 fragments that travelled at 1,524 meters per second within a lethal radius of 5 meters. This round incorporated a spin-activation safety feature which prevented the grenade from arming while still within range of the shooter; it armed itself after traveling a distance of about 30 meters. Even though the round would not arm at point blank ranges, the round still had enough kinetic energy to kill or seriously injure its target.
Once in operation, , the M/35 quickly became popular among Finnish soldiers Owing to its ease of use, reliability, and firepower. It was semi-seriously dubbed "platoon artillery” and nicknamed “Thumper” by the troops. During the Winter War, the M/35 proved invaluable, particularly for breaking up Soviet human wave attacks. The white phosphorous, smoke and illumination rounds also proved very useful. In action, many soldiers cut down the stock and barrel to make the M/35 even more portable. Major drawbacks in combat proved to be its single-shot nature. Having to reload after every shot meant a slow rate of fire and therefore an inability to keep up a constant volume of fire during a firefight. Also, for close-in situations, the minimum arming range (the round had to travel 30 meters to arm itself) and the blast radius meant a grenadier would have to either resort to a backup weapon, or fire and hope that the grenade would not arm itself and would act as a giant slow bullet.
Like I said, brain fart. Not even a draft. Just initial working notes. Anyone wants to volunteer to rewrite, go for it with my blessing...... If you're willing to put the effort in, I'll live with the results
Here you go. This is very much a rough draft. Call it a brain fart if you will. Hasn't been tweaked, rewritten or polished. I'd hesitate to call it a draft but given the lack of time, here you go and if anyone wants to take it and rewrite it, have at it...... and I haven't even looked at rounds, calibre and all of those fun details. I think the basic premise is that the LS-SLR 7.62 uses the same round as the Moisin-Nagant but..... like I said, brain fart coming ....
*************************************************************
Small Arms, Machineguns and Mines: The Best Small Arms in the World
Finland’s greatest military assets were its tough skilled outdoorsman citizen-soldiers, instilled with the belief that "One Finn is equal to Twenty Russians" and Finnish “Sisu.” In the historical Winter War, the Finnish Army was under-resourced and ill-equipped. While the primary infantry weapon, the Moison-Nagant, was an excellent rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a (relatively) slow rate of fire. The Finnish Army was under equipped wth automatic weapons (while the Sumoi machinepistol was issued, it was available only in low numbers) and both anti-tank guns, mortars and artillery were either in short supply or non-existent. In addition, ammunition supplies were limited and production was insufficient to meet combat needs. This severely limited the Finnish Army’s options in the historical War.
In this alternative scenario, Finland rectifies these shortfalls over the decade of the 1930’s. From the 1931 Defense Review on, the Finnish Military (with Government support and the necessary budgetary provisions) worked hard, within the financial constraints of being a small country with a limited budget, to provide their soldiers with the best possible small arms for use in Finnish conditions and to meet the needs of what would be a heavily outnumbered Army in the event of any war with the Soviet Union. Prior to the Army’s reorganization and the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, Finnish soldiers were armed primarily with bolt-action rifles – the Moison-Nagant Rifle – and heavy machineguns (the Maxim). Anti-tank weaponry was non-existent, Mortars and Anti-Aircraft Guns were available only in token numbers, Artillery was in short supply and much that was available was antiquated, ammunition stocks for all weapons were small and other infantry support weapons were almost non-existent.
With limited orders from the military, Finnish industry was incapable of producing large quantities of weapons or munitions and expansion of the manufacturing capacity for such items takes years rather than months. Thus, when the real Winter War actually broke out, Finland’s industrial capacity was incapable of rapid expansion, and cut off as they were from access to major manufacturing countries, rapid access to purchased equipment was impossible. The Suomi machinepistol was a typical example – an excellent weapon, probably the best machinepistol in the world, it was also very poorly suited for wartime mass-production, with major components being milled individually rather than stamped or pressed. At the outbreak of the Winter War, pehrhaps 50-60 per day could be manufactured, and this was the maximum production level which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi m/31) succeeded in achieving. This came to about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. In 1944 Tikkakoski calculated targets for production of the M/44 submachinegun - the estimated production rate (with production of Suomi M/31 running concurrently) for large-scale production was 50,000 in 14 months.
Other weapons were designed and produced too late to be of any real value. The Lahti L-39 20mm Anti-tank rifle being another case in point. An excellent weapon for 1939, it was a case of too little, too late. In sufficient quantity, in the Winter War this could have been a decisive weapon. As it was, the Finnish Army suffered severe and unnecessary casualties as a result of lacking the appropriate weapons and also due to ammunition shortages. Where the right weapons and sufficient ammunition was available, the Finnish Army wrought miracles. In some cases, individual Finnish soldiers killed literally 80-100 Russian soldiers each in single engagements. Numbers that even their own officers found it difficult to believe until they saw the evidence with their own eyes.
One of the central premise’s of this alternative history scenario is that, from 1931 on, the Finnish Government spends significantly larger amounts on defense (which is possible for two reasons – a stronger economy with a GDP approximately double the historical, and a firm commitment to increased defence spending), increasing significantly the numbers and quality (via training) of soldiers available and also carrying out an on-going and large-scale re-equipment program. As part of the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, and driven by field exercises and the development of indvidual and unit tactics and combat techniques suited to Finnish terrain and the Finnish soldier, a decision was made that the firepower of infantry units and of individual soldiers needed to be substantially upgraded.
Five types of weapons were identifed as necessary. An individual rifle capable of firing in semi-automatic and, perhaps optionally, automatic mode, a “submachine gun” type weapon capable of a high rate of rapid fire and effective at shorter ranges, a General Purpose Machinegun - a new, lighter and more infantry-portable Machinegun to replace the Maxim, a “light” man-portable Anti-Tank Rifle and lastly, some sort of weapon for projecting grenades out further than could be achieved by hand (but lighter than a conventional mortar, by preference being man-portable. In this selection of weapons, the Finnish Army would be decades ahead of its opponents and of most other, if not all other, armies in the world. The remainder of this section goes on to detail these weapons, their characteristics and their introduction into the Finnish Army and summarises their impact in the Winter War.
To meet these weapons requirements, the Finnish Army called on Finland’s own self-educated genius, Aimo Johannes Lahti, whom we have already taken a brief look at when we covered the Mosin-Nagant upgrade programe of the 1920’s.
The Moisin-Nagant Replacement – the Lahti-Saloranta Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm (LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm)
In 1931, as part of the Defence Review, the need for a semi-automatic self-loading Rifle with a large magazine capacity for the front-Line infantry was identified as a critical need. The Defence Review group responsible for infantry firearms spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this recommendation, with some heated arguments both for and against. The “against” school
The “for” school pointed out that while the bolt-action Moison-Nagant was a reliable rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a relatively slow rate of fire and a small magazine capacity (x rounds) and something in between this and a machine-gun but with greater range and better long-distance accuracy than a submachinegun was needed by the Finnish Army to offset the simple mathematics imposed by the large disparity in numbers with the Red Army that could be expected in any war. The “for” school also pointed back to the experiences of WW1 and the
In late 1932, Mannerheim appointed Arvo Saloranta to head a team tasked with coming up with a replacement Infantry Rifle, with their first task being to examine currently available military rifles. One of the weapons that came to their attention was the Polish Army’s Fabrique Nationale (FN) wz. 1928 light machine gun chambered to the 7.92x57mm Mauser round. In 1920, the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN) had acquired the sales and production rights to the BAR series of firearms in Europe from Colt. The wz 1928 was based on this weapon, and FN’s first order was the Polish order for 10,000 7.92-mm light machinegun wz.28, the contract for which was signed in December of 1927. The version delivered to Poland was based on the "R 75" commercial version, which Colt had introduced in 1925.
The Polish wz. 1928 variant.
Changes to the base design included a pistol grip, different type of bipod, open-type V-notch rear sight and a slightly longer barrel. Subsequent rifles were assembled locally in Poland under license by the State Rifle Factory (Państwowa Fabryka Karabinów) in Warsaw. The wz. 1928 was accepted into service with the Polish Army in 1927 under the formal name 7,92 mm rkm Browning wz. 1928 (“7.92 mm Browning hand-held machine gun model 1928”) and – until the outbreak of World War II – was the primary light support weapon of Polish infantry and cavalry formations (in 1939 Poland had a total of approx. 20,000 wz. 1928 rifles in service). Additional detail modifications were introduced on the production line. Among them was the replacement of the iron sights with a smaller version and reshaping the butt to a fish tail.
The Finnish Army bought a small number of these light machineguns in 1933 from Poland, and after further evaluation, purchased a manufacturing license from Fabrique Nationale.. Aimo Lahti and Arvo Salorante were personally tasked by Mannerheim with taking the weapon and using it as the basis for designing a semi-automatic self-loading rifle for the Finnish Army infantryman. Both Lahti and Soloranta had experimented with a number of recoil-operated rifle designs in the early 1930’s and these experiements laid the basis for a gas-operated semiautomatic rifle. The prototype was chambered to the standard 7.62mm round used for the Moisin-Nagant Rifle, thus ensuring compatibility. Lahti also redesigned the whole receiver for the SLR, making disassembling and reassembling the weapon much easier. Other notable improvements introduced by Lahti were the carrying handle (the earlier Polish version had none) and the replacement of the fixed rear sight with a graduated flip sight. The wooden butt-stock was modified to include the unique feature of a Nokia designed and manufacture replaceable rubber butt-pad (which significantly reduced felt recoil), available in several different sizes to accommodate an individual shooter's "length of pull."A further modification was an integral "fold-away" trigger guard with a modified pistol grip for winter use.
The 20 round box magazine was retained. However, in early testing, the front lug of the magazine (where it locks up into the receiver when the magazine is properly inserted front end first) proved to be a weak feature which caused a large number of malfunctions. (this front lug was merely punched out of the sheet metal of the magazine body). Saloranta solved this problem by installing a separate beefed-up front lug. Basic specifications were a weight of 9.8 lb, a length of 43 in, barrel length of 21 in., a maximum rate of fire when used in automatic mode of 650 rounds per minute with an effective range of 1,500 feet (500 meters). With these features the LS-SLR was without doubt the most advanced Infantry Rifle existing in military use when World War 2 began. A small run of prototypes was produced in early 1935, with testing conducted through the spring and summer of the same year. The end result was that the new Rifle was accepted by the Finnish Ordanance Board in October 1935 as the replacement for the Moisin-Nagant, designated the LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm) and an initial order was placed with VKT (the State Rifle Factory) for a series of large-scale production runs sufficient to fully re-equip the entire combat branch of the Finnish Army over a ten year timeframe.
The replacement program was planned as a ten-year effort, with VKT to manufacture 50,000 Rifles per year starting in 1936. This production target was not met in 1936, with initial difficulties with the production line resulting in only 30,000 Rifles being produced, but the target was met in 1937. In 1938, production was doubled after the Munich Crisi as VKT expanded manufacturing lines and moved to 24/7 manufacturing, running 3 shifts and working 7 days per week, with 70,000 Rifles produced. In 1939, running at full capacity on a 24/7 basis, VKT managed to produce 120,000 Rifles, meaning that by the time the Winter War broke out some 270,000 Rifles had been delivered, enough to equip a majority of the front-line combat infantry (Mosin-Nagant Rifles were at this stage largely relegated to use by rear-echelon, rear-area and support troops, the Home Guard and Boy-Soldiers. A limited number of the Finnish Manufactured Moisin-Nagant’s were retained within Infantry units as Bolt-Action Sniper Rifles fitted with Sniper Scopes. Front line Snipers often prefered the old Moisin-Nagant rather than the LS-SLR Sniper variant as a sniper rifle – the Finnish Army left the choice of weapon up to the individual sniper.
LS-SLR/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle 1935 7.62mm) – note the many similarities to the 1939 FN D light machinegun below (Picture below taken in Rannikkotykistömuseo) used by the Finnish Army during the (actual) Continuation War.
The LS-SLR/M/35 was a gas-operated semi-automatic which fired from the closed-bolt position in the semi--auto mode. It had an operator-adjustable gas regulator which worked on the "exhaust" principle. Under ideal conditions the major portion of the gas was passed The gas regulator offered firing with the lowest possible recoil combined with the ability to direct more gas into the system under adverse conditions or in case of fouling. In fully-automatic mode, however, the shooter receives considerable abuse from recoil, and the weapon climbs off-target quickly, making automatic fire only of marginal effectiveness .
The receivers were forged and milled with a projected lifespan of 80,000 rounds. The trigger mechanism was ingenious and well-designed. One disadvantage of the LS-SLR was the amount of work which went into machining the complex receiver (rather than the quicker and more cost effective stamping or casting techniques), bolt and bolt carrier. Additionally, the movement of the tilting bolt mechanism tended to return differently with each shot, affecting inherent accuracy of the weapon.
The LS-SLR/35 was a comfortable rifle to shoot and it handled well. The adjustable gas system, placement of the gas cylinder above the barrel, and alignment of the stock with the barrel axis all reduced the tendency of the weapon to climb in rapid semiauto fire. Although the rear sight had a tendancy to wobble, and many soldiers found the rear peep too close to the eye, the LS-SLR was capable of splendid accuracy with iron sights when fired by a well-trained shooter. Well-built, rugged, handsomely finished for a military rifle, and adequately reliable except under the most severe sand and dust conditions, the LS-SLR soon won an excellent and well deserved reputation with the Finnish soldier.
During early trials, it was soon determined that firing the LS-SLR in the full-auto mode was best restricted to only the most experienced soldiers who could fire in two to three-round bursts at extremely short distances. At ranges of 200 meters or more, employing an unsupported kneeling or sitting position, the second and third rounds in the burst usually hit at least 10 meters above and to the right of the first shot. Full-auto fire offhand with an 8- to 10-pound rifle in caliber 7.92mm was strictly an emergency procedure. In point of fact, after initial trials with the prototypes, the Finnish Army removed the selective-fire option entirely. An interesting variation that occurred during the Winter War was the field modification of LS-SLR rifles by soldiers for better handling. Nicknamed "The Bitch", these rifles were field modified, with their barrels cut off immediately in front of the gas block, and the unofficial permanent conversion to full-auto capability by simply filing down the selector.
From 1938 on, an optical sight was manufactured for the LS-SLR. Early testing with optical sights had resulted in the sights failing miserably to hold zero.. Bench-rest groups fired with scopes exhibited as much as 12 inches in vertical dispersion at 100 meters. This was completely unacceptable. The fault lay not in the optics, but in the use of the sheet-metal receiver cover as a mount. The thin receiver cover simply bent and twisted too much during the firing sequence. The solution was a rigid mount that completely replaced the original receiver cover. Following this modification, the scopes worked satisfactorily. Production runs from 1938 on included this new mount as standard. The standard optical scope made available to non-sniper qualified soldiers who achieved “marksman” grading were the 4x
During the Winter War, the LS-SLR/M/35 semi-automatic rifle with 20 round magazines was the standard infantry platoon weapon, providing an infantry unit with a solid base of accurate, rapid and highly effective firepower. The 4x optical sights and high standard of marksmanship training of the average Finnish soldier enhanced the effectiveness of this weapon and extended the range for accurate shooting outwards considerably. In conjunction with the standard Suomi M/31 submachineguns, LS-41 Light Machineguns and the LS-39 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles (as well as the grenades, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines with which each platoon was equipped), as well as the high level of tactical training and physical fitness, the average Finnish infantry platoon of late 1939 was an outstandingly dangerous opponent and, by the standards of other European Armies, out in front in a class of their own.
Alternative Scenario - Suomi M/31
In this alternative, the Finnish Army recognises the effectiveness of rhe Suomi M/31 from the early trials and testing. Following a series of exercises, it was decided to integrate the Sumoi M/1931 into the Finnish Armies TOE at a ratio of 2 M/31’s to each Infantry Section. Large scale production commenced in 1934, with 11,475 being produced in that year, 13,075 in 1935, approximately 16,000 in 1936 and 1937 and 20,000 per year in 1938 through to 1939 – a total of approximately 96,000 were in service with the Finnish Army at the time war broke out in late 1939.
What made the M/31 exceptional was the high quality of manufacturing, its high volume ammunition feed system and its accuracy. However, while it was a very good weapon, it was also poorly suited for wartime mass-production as it was slow and complicated to manufacture. The maximum production level, which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi M/31) succeeded in achieving was about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. This was recognized as a limitation and in 1938, a newer version, the M/31B (aka the M/42 from actual history) was introduced. This resulted in a somewhat faster manufacturing processing, with approximately 1,900 per month being manufactured from 1938 on.
The standard magazines were the 20 and 50-round clips and the 70-round drum. The 50-round clips were somewhat unreliable and prone to cause jamming problems and had mostly been phased out by 1939.
To this end, the TOE was established as two Suomi M/1931’s and one LMG per Section (six and three per Platoon respectively).
General Purpose Machinegun L-41 7.62mm "Sampo": (designation needs to be changed btw
By 1934, the Finnish military had come to conclusion that the Maxim machineguns were both very heavy and structurally complicated. The heavy weight made using them in mobile operations difficult, as they were slow to move while the structural complexity increased their unreliability and made them more difficult to use. Organisationally, they were allocated to Battalion Machinegun Companies, which, as part of the reorganisation of the early 1930’s, the Finnish Army was doing away with. The intention was to allocate machineguns to Infantry Sections and Platoons, and that these would be lighter and much more portable than the Maxims. It was also intended that the new Section Machinegun would have a crew of only two soldiers, and that the ammunition would be the same calibre as the standard Infantry Assault Rifle which was to be introduced.
In late 1934, Aimo Lahti was asked to design a new Section General Purpose Machinegun. The gun was to be 7.62mm and belt fed, lightweight and onr of the key objectives was that it be lightweight, simple to maintain and highly reliable in the field. In addition, the Finnish Army evaluated a number of foreign designs, including the German MG34. Like all competent Armed Forces everywhere and, in the 1930’s perhaps even more than most, the Finnish Armed Forces observed development of new military equipment abroad. In 1934 the Finns had noted the introduction of the new belt-fed MG-34 machinegun to German use. The MG34 was the first modern general purpose machine gun. Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG34 could fire for much longer periods of time than conventional weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle or Bren, while being much lighter than crew-served weapons like the Vickers machine gun. The weapon was also quite versatile, able to be fed from drums or belts, and mounted on bipods, heavy tripods, or various pintle mounts for armored vehicles. It even became a primary defensive gun for the Luftwaffe, in its MG81 form. However, it did have its drawbacks, such as sensitivity to dust and comparatively expensive production. At the time it was introduced it had a number of advanced features and the general purpose machine gun concept that it aspired to was an influential one. However the MG34 was also expensive, both in terms of construction and the raw materials needed (49 kg (108 lb) of steel and its manufacture was too time-consuming to be built in the numbers required for the ever-expanding Finnish armed forces.
However, the Finnish Army did acquire half a dozen MG34’s for evaluation, with two being passed to Lahti for “reverse engineering.” In response to the Army request, Lahti designed the L-xx "Sampo" in late 1934. A number of design features from the MG34 were incorporated into the L-41 design, as were a number of improvements that were suggested from Lahti’s examination of the weapon. Getting the weapon to the protoype stage took time – the reason largely being the ammunition the Finnish military was using - designing a reliable belt-fed weapon that uses rimmed ammunition (such as the 7.62 mm x 54R used by Finnish military) while keeping the weight reasonable is much more difficult than designing a weapon using non-rimmed ammunition. The feeding process for rimmed ammunition tends to be more complicated than for non-rimmed. Basically this is because rimmed ammunition needs to be first pulled off the belt before it can be fed into the cartridge chamber while non-rimmed ammunition can be fed directly into the cartridge chamber while on the belt.
The first prototype of the belt-fed L-41 Sampo was finished in early 1935 and then tested. This first prototype version was a true general purpose machinegun, with a rifle-like butt, a pistol handle and a new tripod designed specially for the weapon. A bipod for light machinegun use was also included as standard equipment. The weapon was gas-action with an air-cooled barrel. In addition it had an adjustable rate of fire. In the first tests in late 1935, the steel used in the lock switches proved to be too soft and jammed the lock of each weapon during test firing. Once these parts were replaced with new ones that had been properly heat-treated the weapons successfully passed the tests. Suggested improvements included a redesign of the barrel, allowing replacing of the barrel in only few seconds. One handicap (if considered as such) was the very high rate of fire possibe – the maximun cyclic rate was some 1,000 shots/minute. A rate of fire this high overheated the barrel quickly and also wore them out very fast, so frequent changing of barrel was necessary during combat.However, the ability to adjust the rate of fire downwards was seen as a major plus, particularly where ammunition supply was restricted. Test reports from the troops field-testing the prototypes were mainly positive. The field tests revealed many problems, but nothing that could not be fixed.
Basically the troops considered the L-41 a good weapon in offensive use, but not particularly good when used in static defensive positions. This was not terribly surprising, as static defensive use was exactly where Maxim machineguns excelled. Other problems the early tests revealed included reliability problems with mixed/older ammunition, heated parts sticking, which made quickly replacing barrel and also carrying the weapon difficult, the tripod was not easy to put into the firing position and the anti-aircraft tripod was too fragile, and structural weaknesses in the recoil-spring and bolt parts. These were all problems which were rectified realtively easily and quickly for the second protype version. VKT also brought in a German specialist in the technology of mass production to work with Lahti and VKT on the manufacturing process and how this impacted the design. The second prototype was finished in the early 1936, with fine-tuning work on improvements continued until March - April of 1936.
The Finnish Army ordered a test series of 50 weapons in January of 1936, but because of these improvements the test series was not delivered until the summer of 1936. The manufacturer of the field test series was VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). These were issued to Army units for field tests immediately. As usual, the Army Ordnance Department had asked feedback in the form of test reports from the units to which the weapons of field test series were issued The feedback from Finnish field tests of the second protoype vesion was received in October of 1936 and proved exceptionally positive. Finnish Army planning was to replace the Maxim medium machineguns used by heavy machinegun companies in infantry units with the new weapon, and relegate the Maxim’s to fixed defensive positions on the Mannerheim and VKT Lines as well as in Coastal Defenses.
Plans made by Weapons HQ of the Finnish Army General Headquarters required all Infantry Units to be issued with the new general purpose machinegun. The planed TOE was for 10 of the new Machineguns for each Infantry Company, which required a total of xxxx of these weapons. Marshal Mannerheim approved the purchase of these machineguns on the 29th of December 1936 and a week later, on the 8th of January 1937, Major General Svanström (Head of Weapons HQ in Finnish Army GHQ) placed the initial order with VKT.
The final prototype design required considerably less tooling and was much simpler to build than the first version - it took 75 man hours to complete the new gun as opposed to 150 man hours for the first version (a 50% reduction in work). Estimated prices mentioned in an offer sent by VKT to the Army Ordnance Department on the 11th of November 1936 were for a 4,360 Finnish marks Price per Weapon for 10,000 weapons or more. Specifications were as follows:
Calibre: 7,62 mm x 54 R
Length: 1325 mm
Barrel length: 605 mm
Weight: 14,9 kg
Fire-rate: 600 - 1000/minute (adjustable)
Ammunition belt: 200-round continuous metal belt m/32, weight 2,6 kg fully loaded and 1,3 kg empty
Mount: Tripod, weight 16 kg
From a technical and manufacturing viewpoint the L-41 Sampo marked considerable progress and proved highly suitable for mass-production. A large percentage of the parts used were stamped and punched, while the basic structure was also quite simple, thus reducing production costs, time needed for manufacturing and the amount of materials needed considerably. VKT had the prototype ready and tested ready for mass-production, but in practice this was to prove much more difficult than anticipated. Rather ironically, modern and cost-effective manufacturing methods proved difficult for Finnish industry. Many of the most important parts of the L-41 (like the receiver) were stamped and/or punched and thus far VKT had manufactured receivers only by milling (machining) them. VKT lacked tools and machinery for this kind of work and building or acquiring them was the source of an unexpected delay..
For this reason VKT estimated that starting the mass-production might take about a year (in other words: until December of 1937). Considering this and the number (of L-41 machineguns) the Finnish Army needed, VKT suggested acquiring stamped parts needed for these weapons from Germany or Sweden. While manufacturing the quantities the Finns wanted was a very large work for the Finnish armaments industry, it was still a small amount for German manufacturers. The purchase from Germany was approved almost immediately, with approximately two years supply of stamped parts orders, giving VKT the necessary lead time to set up their own stamping and punching machinery (which they managed to do in 10 months). Production immediately moved to 24/7 in an attenpt to meet the Finnish Army’s needs. This was successful, and by the outbreak of the Winter War in late 1939, almost all Finnish Army units were fully equipped with the new machinegun, with production actually increasing from early 1939 on.
As the L-41 was phased in, the heavy machinegun companies were phased out and the Maxim’s relegated to fixed defensive positions. This was where they excelled. Their heavy weight (weapon + tripod combination was over 20 kg) made them less than mobile. In defensive warfare beating the capability of water-cooled Maxim just to keep going belt after belt would have been practically impossible for any air-cooled machinegun, so as long as there was no need for moving the machineguns to new place this would have been the area where Maxim ruled.
By way of contrast, the L-41 gave infantry units hugely emhanced firepweor was that was also considerably more mobile. This increased mobility allowed machineguns to be moved faster and more easily from one place to another, so the machineguns were able to move with the infantry and be available immediately they were needed. The L-41 proved exceptionally useful, reliable and robust weapon in the Winter War battlefields. The Finnish military went on to use the L-41 in many roles, including light machinegun (with bipod only), heavy machinegun (with tripod) and anti-aircraft weapon. It proved to be one of the most successful machineguns ever and continued to see plenty of use after World War 2. Indeed, Finland exported numbers of this weapon to Sweden during the Second World War, where it went on to become standard equipment for the Swedish Army.
20mm Panssarintorjunta (Anti-tank) Rifle L-39 “Norsupyssy" (Elephant Gun)
One of the early questions that was addressed in the equipment reviews of 1931/32 was that of a suitable man-portable light anti-tank rifle. There was no question that such a weapon was needed as a counter to the growing Soviet tank threat. The initial debate that ocurred was over the calibre of the weapon. Some officers wanted 12,7 mm weapons, some wanted 13.2 mm weapons and some (including Lahti) wanted 20 mm weapons. The initial problem with accepting a 20-mm weapon early on seems to have been the slow muzzle velocity of then-existing 20-mm ammunition. No 12.7mm weapons were evaluated but a number of 13.2 mm calibre weapons were tested starting in 1932. Lahti didn't like either calibre, as he thought both had too little armour-penetration and he was also unhappy with that fact that neither calibre had tracer ammunition available.
At this stage, Lahti also managed to get himself into an argument with Colonel Raatikainen of the Finnish Army’s Weapons Design Committee regaring a mount for the new AT-Rifle. Raatikainen wanted a mount similar to the Germans, suitable for both AA- and AT-shooting. Lahti considered this unsuitable for AT-use. Another argument surfaced as Raatikainen and Saario wanted the Swiss 20mm Oerlikon gun to be accepted (suspicions existed about Raatikainen and Saario representing Oerlikon and having their own financial interests in this matter). Lahti was also very much against this porposal as the Oerlikon 20mm gun had poor armour-penetration capability.
Artillery Generals Nenonen and Svanström also joined the argument, demanding a 20 mm AT-rifle capable of penetrating 30 mm of armour. Live fire tests in the summer of 1933 finally proved that 20 mm was much more effective then 13.2 mm and a decision to choose 20 mm as the calibre for the Finnish Army’s AT-rifle was made in late 1933. Lahti was given the go-ahead in October 1933 and within three weeks he had designed the weapon. Two prototypes were immediately made and tested. In the spring of 1934, these prototypes easily won tests against the 13mm weapons available On. 6th of September 1934 the new 20 mm Lahtu Anti-tank Rifle was accepted into the Finnish Army equipment list as the L-39.
The L-39 was a gas-action semiautomatic, but it wasn't a pure semiautomatic in the common sense meaning of the term. When a shot was fired and the bolt retreated back, it didn't return forward for the next shot until \released using a switch located on the front part of the weapons pistol grip. Releasing the bolt usually took place just after firing the shot as it reduced the feel of the recoil. The L-39’s Loading Mechanism was a crank-like handle located on the right-hand side of the weapon. The weapon fired from a closed bolt. Presumably the bolt not returning forward had been added to improve cooling. The rifle had both a bipod and a muzzle brake. The gas getting to the gas-action mechanism was adjustable (four settings: 1.5, 1.8, 2.2 and 2.5 indicated the diameter of the hole to gas-action mechanism). Magazines of the weapon were not exactly light – an empty magazine weighed 3.37-kg and a fully loaded magazine weighed 6.7-kg. An experienced shooter could achieve a rate of fire as high as 15 shots/minute. The protective arch in front of the trigger guard was there for a good reason - the weapon extracted its used (heavy and hot) cartridge cases below the weapon just in front of it. Sights were fully adjustable with rear sight settings from 200 to 1400 meters. Because of the magazine located on top the weapon the sights were located on the left side of the weapon. Typical equipment included four magazine pouches, each containing two magazines.
At this point, the Finnish Army also ordered 20 mm antiaircraft guns, and it was decided to manufacture all further 20 mm antitank rifles in 20 mm x 138 B (Rheinmetall-Borsig / Solothurn long) calibre (to allow the same ammunition to be used in both AA-guns and the AT-rifle). This obviously made ammunition supply easier, since this calibre ammunition was manufactured in Germany and Italy, while 20mmx113 would have been unique to Finland. However, this was not the only reason. The propellant charge which VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory, located in the town of Jyväskylä) wanted to use to reach the requested muzzle velocity could not be contained in 20mm x 113 cartridge case, however the 20mm x 138B cartridge case was large enough
Ammunition types used included AP, AP-T, APHE-T, HE-T and phosphorous shells. AP was most plentiful of ammunition types but not very suitable to some of the later uses for L-39. At the same time AP-T and APHE-T projectiles fired by these weapons were dangerous to even well-armoured ground attack aircraft. Well placed shots of HE and phosphorous shells hitting bunker vision slots could be used to keep enemy infantry pinned down during trench war period, phosphorous shells could also be used for setting forest fires during summer-time. However availability of HE, APHE-tracer and phosphorous shells for infantry used was typically more limited as these ammunition types were mostly used with antiaircraft-guns. Ammunition was manufactured by VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). Domestic 20mm x 138B cartridge cases were manufactured by Oy Tikkakoski Ab and Oy Sytytin.
The first order, for 2,000 AT-rifles, was placed in September 1933, with VKT ramping up a separate production line over late 1933 / the first half of 1934. Meanwhile, the reorganisation and table of equipment planning for the Finnish Army had been completed, with planned TOE being 4 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles for every Infantry Company (approx. 20 per Battalion, 70 per Regiment, 220 per Division). With the reorganised and greatly enlarged Army, 10,000 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles were needed.In the meantime, further trials and exercises had determined that, with it’s AP and HE ammunition, the LT-39 was effective not just against Armoured Vehicles but also against targets such as bunker loopholes and landing craft up to 500 - 600 meter distance as well as for long-range sniping (for which a telescopic sight was introduced from 1937 on). Against heavier tanks, it proved useful against several weak spots, such as open top hatches, especially with phosphorus ammunition). It was even able to damage tank turrets and pin them to stop traversal of the cannon. In further trials, it was found that when placed on an improvised anti-aircraft mount it presented a threat to ground-attack aircraft pilots. Finnish troops almost immediately nicknamed the weapon "norsupyssy" (=elephant gun) and the weapon gained a reputation for its accuracy and effectiveness right from it’s introduction on.
The first production series of 2,000 L-39’s was finished by the 10th of April 1936. Production stepped up in 1936, with approximately 2,000 L-39’s per year being manufactured. By 1939, all Finnish Army Field Infantry Divisions were fully equipped up to the TOE strength, and a limited number of Training and War Reserve weapons were available and stockpiled. 1940 production was sufficient to replace combat losses and writeoffs, as well as add to the War Reserve stockpile. The weapon proved highly effective in the Winter War, able to penetrate the armor of all but the heaviest Soviet tanks. And even those it could damage when aimed at weakpoints. It was also used heavily as a long range sniper rifle and for bunker-busting as the Finnish Army moved onto the offensive. One weakness turned out to be the size and weight - it was just too large and heavy for one man to carry it alone long distances, but this was not a major problem.
Users commented that the L-39 was heavy and difficult to move in the battlefield. Even its magazine weighed almost two kilograms more than the Finnish Suomi M-31 submachine gun. The whole weapon weighed some 50 kilograms and it was usually towed by reindeer or horses, but could be carried by several men. In the field, a two man team was assigned to the gun to move and fire it. During winter, a sledge was used, while on road marches a vehicle was used if available.
Single Shot Grenade Launcher
In late 1933, the Finnish Army’s Ordanance Department had also tasked Aimo Lahti with a research contract for a prototype Single Shot portable grenade launcher. The broad concept was to come up with a lightweight portable launcher that could be easily carried by a single soldier in addition to his normal equipment and rifle and which would provide the infantry with a means of projecting out anti-personnel grenades well beyond throwing distance and obviate the need to call in artillery or mortar support where not necessary. The project was nicknamed “Platoon Artillery.”
With his usual flair for weapons design, Lahti took the concept and, within weeks, had designed and built an initial prototype. This closely resembled a sawn-off shotgun with an extra-large calibre of 50mm. It was basically a single-shot, break-open, shoulder-fired weapon, fairly lightweight and with a slow rate of fire (each round needed to be individually loaded). Designing and manufacturing grenade rounds to work with the launcher was a bigger challenge, and a satisfactory round was finally prototyped only in late 1934. Testing took place over the first quarter of 1935, with satisfactory results, and the Grenade Launcher was ordered into production in mid-1935, with an initial TOE of ten Grenade Launchers per Infantry Platoon (one for each of the Nine Infantry Squads in a Platoon and one within the Platoon Command Group). The Grenade Launcher was designated the M/35 and, being easy to manufacture and also cheap, was mass-produced in short order, with all units fully equipped by mid 1938.
Visibly, the M/35 grenade launcher resembled nothing so much as a large bore, break-action, sawn-off shotgun, and was very simple in design, having only five parts: a receiver group, a fore-end assembly, a barrel group, a sight assembly, and a stock. The fore-end assembly beded the barrel to the receiver. The stock wa made out of wood. A rubber pad was fixed to the shoulder stock to absorb some of the recoil. The front sight was a fixed blade. The rear sight was a folding ladder-style leaf-type sight. When folded, the leaf sight acted as a fixed sight for close range. A grenadier could also simply point and shoot with a high degree of accuracy. When unfolded, the leaf-type sight could be adjusted for ranges from 75-meters out to 375-meters, in 25-meters increments. Specifications were a weight of 6.45lb loaded (5.95lb empty), a length of 28.78in, barrel length of 14in., a rate of fire of 6 rounds/min, an effective range of 350m, and breech loaded. Each round weighed approximately 0.5lbs. A grenadier typically carried a load of 40 rounds (sometimes more) in addition to their standard equipment and their LS-SLR.
The weapon was easy to operate. To load, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch on the receiver group to the right. Gravity pulledl down the barrel, breaking it open, and exposing the breech. The hammer was cocked when the breech was opened. A round could then be loaded. The break action was then closed manually. Closing the breech caused the barrel locking latch to return to center. To fire, the grenadier pushed the safety forward, and pulled the trigger. To unload, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch to the right and opened the breech. The extractor pushed the case out, allowing the grenadier to grasp it and remove it. If a soldier was wearing gloves for winter operations, the trigger guard could be rotated to the left or right.
Three different ammunition types were produced for the M/35. Explosive, Smoke and Illumination. The 50 mm HE (high explosive) grenades fired from the M/35 travelled at a muzzle velocity of 75 meters per second. The grenade contained enough explosive to produce over 300 fragments that travelled at 1,524 meters per second within a lethal radius of 5 meters. This round incorporated a spin-activation safety feature which prevented the grenade from arming while still within range of the shooter; it armed itself after traveling a distance of about 30 meters. Even though the round would not arm at point blank ranges, the round still had enough kinetic energy to kill or seriously injure its target.
Once in operation, , the M/35 quickly became popular among Finnish soldiers Owing to its ease of use, reliability, and firepower. It was semi-seriously dubbed "platoon artillery” and nicknamed “Thumper” by the troops. During the Winter War, the M/35 proved invaluable, particularly for breaking up Soviet human wave attacks. The white phosphorous, smoke and illumination rounds also proved very useful. In action, many soldiers cut down the stock and barrel to make the M/35 even more portable. Major drawbacks in combat proved to be its single-shot nature. Having to reload after every shot meant a slow rate of fire and therefore an inability to keep up a constant volume of fire during a firefight. Also, for close-in situations, the minimum arming range (the round had to travel 30 meters to arm itself) and the blast radius meant a grenadier would have to either resort to a backup weapon, or fire and hope that the grenade would not arm itself and would act as a giant slow bullet.
Like I said, brain fart. Not even a draft. Just initial working notes. Anyone wants to volunteer to rewrite, go for it with my blessing...... If you're willing to put the effort in, I'll live with the results
Good to see a return of this TL and you.
Will have a more in depth look later on tonight.
Will have a more in depth look later on tonight.
Does everyone with that grenade launcher say "I'll be back" before doing a twirly reload on the back of a motorcycle?
Here you go. This is very much a rough draft. Call it a brain fart if you will. Hasn't been tweaked, rewritten or polished. I'd hesitate to call it a draft but given the lack of time, here you go and if anyone wants to take it and rewrite it, have at it...... and I haven't even looked at rounds, calibre and all of those fun details. I think the basic premise is that the LS-SLR 7.62 uses the same round as the Moisin-Nagant but..... like I said, brain fart coming ....
*************************************************************
Small Arms, Machineguns and Mines: The Best Small Arms in the World
Finland’s greatest military assets were its tough skilled outdoorsman citizen-soldiers, instilled with the belief that "One Finn is equal to Twenty Russians" and Finnish “Sisu.” In the historical Winter War, the Finnish Army was under-resourced and ill-equipped. While the primary infantry weapon, the Moison-Nagant, was an excellent rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a (relatively) slow rate of fire. The Finnish Army was under equipped wth automatic weapons (while the Sumoi machinepistol was issued, it was available only in low numbers) and both anti-tank guns, mortars and artillery were either in short supply or non-existent. In addition, ammunition supplies were limited and production was insufficient to meet combat needs. This severely limited the Finnish Army’s options in the historical War.
In this alternative scenario, Finland rectifies these shortfalls over the decade of the 1930’s. From the 1931 Defense Review on, the Finnish Military (with Government support and the necessary budgetary provisions) worked hard, within the financial constraints of being a small country with a limited budget, to provide their soldiers with the best possible small arms for use in Finnish conditions and to meet the needs of what would be a heavily outnumbered Army in the event of any war with the Soviet Union. Prior to the Army’s reorganization and the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, Finnish soldiers were armed primarily with bolt-action rifles – the Moison-Nagant Rifle – and heavy machineguns (the Maxim). Anti-tank weaponry was non-existent, Mortars and Anti-Aircraft Guns were available only in token numbers, Artillery was in short supply and much that was available was antiquated, ammunition stocks for all weapons were small and other infantry support weapons were almost non-existent.
With limited orders from the military, Finnish industry was incapable of producing large quantities of weapons or munitions and expansion of the manufacturing capacity for such items takes years rather than months. Thus, when the real Winter War actually broke out, Finland’s industrial capacity was incapable of rapid expansion, and cut off as they were from access to major manufacturing countries, rapid access to purchased equipment was impossible. The Suomi machinepistol was a typical example – an excellent weapon, probably the best machinepistol in the world, it was also very poorly suited for wartime mass-production, with major components being milled individually rather than stamped or pressed. At the outbreak of the Winter War, pehrhaps 50-60 per day could be manufactured, and this was the maximum production level which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi m/31) succeeded in achieving. This came to about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. In 1944 Tikkakoski calculated targets for production of the M/44 submachinegun - the estimated production rate (with production of Suomi M/31 running concurrently) for large-scale production was 50,000 in 14 months.
Other weapons were designed and produced too late to be of any real value. The Lahti L-39 20mm Anti-tank rifle being another case in point. An excellent weapon for 1939, it was a case of too little, too late. In sufficient quantity, in the Winter War this could have been a decisive weapon. As it was, the Finnish Army suffered severe and unnecessary casualties as a result of lacking the appropriate weapons and also due to ammunition shortages. Where the right weapons and sufficient ammunition was available, the Finnish Army wrought miracles. In some cases, individual Finnish soldiers killed literally 80-100 Russian soldiers each in single engagements. Numbers that even their own officers found it difficult to believe until they saw the evidence with their own eyes.
One of the central premise’s of this alternative history scenario is that, from 1931 on, the Finnish Government spends significantly larger amounts on defense (which is possible for two reasons – a stronger economy with a GDP approximately double the historical, and a firm commitment to increased defence spending), increasing significantly the numbers and quality (via training) of soldiers available and also carrying out an on-going and large-scale re-equipment program. As part of the re-equipment program of the 1930’s, and driven by field exercises and the development of indvidual and unit tactics and combat techniques suited to Finnish terrain and the Finnish soldier, a decision was made that the firepower of infantry units and of individual soldiers needed to be substantially upgraded.
Five types of weapons were identifed as necessary. An individual rifle capable of firing in semi-automatic and, perhaps optionally, automatic mode, a “submachine gun” type weapon capable of a high rate of rapid fire and effective at shorter ranges, a General Purpose Machinegun - a new, lighter and more infantry-portable Machinegun to replace the Maxim, a “light” man-portable Anti-Tank Rifle and lastly, some sort of weapon for projecting grenades out further than could be achieved by hand (but lighter than a conventional mortar, by preference being man-portable. In this selection of weapons, the Finnish Army would be decades ahead of its opponents and of most other, if not all other, armies in the world. The remainder of this section goes on to detail these weapons, their characteristics and their introduction into the Finnish Army and summarises their impact in the Winter War.
To meet these weapons requirements, the Finnish Army called on Finland’s own self-educated genius, Aimo Johannes Lahti, whom we have already taken a brief look at when we covered the Mosin-Nagant upgrade programe of the 1920’s.
The Moisin-Nagant Replacement – the Lahti-Saloranta Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm (LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm)
In 1931, as part of the Defence Review, the need for a semi-automatic self-loading Rifle with a large magazine capacity for the front-Line infantry was identified as a critical need. The Defence Review group responsible for infantry firearms spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this recommendation, with some heated arguments both for and against. The “against” school
The “for” school pointed out that while the bolt-action Moison-Nagant was a reliable rifle, it was a bolt-action rifle with a relatively slow rate of fire and a small magazine capacity (x rounds) and something in between this and a machine-gun but with greater range and better long-distance accuracy than a submachinegun was needed by the Finnish Army to offset the simple mathematics imposed by the large disparity in numbers with the Red Army that could be expected in any war. The “for” school also pointed back to the experiences of WW1 and the
In late 1932, Mannerheim appointed Arvo Saloranta to head a team tasked with coming up with a replacement Infantry Rifle, with their first task being to examine currently available military rifles. One of the weapons that came to their attention was the Polish Army’s Fabrique Nationale (FN) wz. 1928 light machine gun chambered to the 7.92x57mm Mauser round. In 1920, the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN) had acquired the sales and production rights to the BAR series of firearms in Europe from Colt. The wz 1928 was based on this weapon, and FN’s first order was the Polish order for 10,000 7.92-mm light machinegun wz.28, the contract for which was signed in December of 1927. The version delivered to Poland was based on the "R 75" commercial version, which Colt had introduced in 1925.
The Polish wz. 1928 variant.
Changes to the base design included a pistol grip, different type of bipod, open-type V-notch rear sight and a slightly longer barrel. Subsequent rifles were assembled locally in Poland under license by the State Rifle Factory (Państwowa Fabryka Karabinów) in Warsaw. The wz. 1928 was accepted into service with the Polish Army in 1927 under the formal name 7,92 mm rkm Browning wz. 1928 (“7.92 mm Browning hand-held machine gun model 1928”) and – until the outbreak of World War II – was the primary light support weapon of Polish infantry and cavalry formations (in 1939 Poland had a total of approx. 20,000 wz. 1928 rifles in service). Additional detail modifications were introduced on the production line. Among them was the replacement of the iron sights with a smaller version and reshaping the butt to a fish tail.
The Finnish Army bought a small number of these light machineguns in 1933 from Poland, and after further evaluation, purchased a manufacturing license from Fabrique Nationale.. Aimo Lahti and Arvo Salorante were personally tasked by Mannerheim with taking the weapon and using it as the basis for designing a semi-automatic self-loading rifle for the Finnish Army infantryman. Both Lahti and Soloranta had experimented with a number of recoil-operated rifle designs in the early 1930’s and these experiements laid the basis for a gas-operated semiautomatic rifle. The prototype was chambered to the standard 7.62mm round used for the Moisin-Nagant Rifle, thus ensuring compatibility. Lahti also redesigned the whole receiver for the SLR, making disassembling and reassembling the weapon much easier. Other notable improvements introduced by Lahti were the carrying handle (the earlier Polish version had none) and the replacement of the fixed rear sight with a graduated flip sight. The wooden butt-stock was modified to include the unique feature of a Nokia designed and manufacture replaceable rubber butt-pad (which significantly reduced felt recoil), available in several different sizes to accommodate an individual shooter's "length of pull."A further modification was an integral "fold-away" trigger guard with a modified pistol grip for winter use.
The 20 round box magazine was retained. However, in early testing, the front lug of the magazine (where it locks up into the receiver when the magazine is properly inserted front end first) proved to be a weak feature which caused a large number of malfunctions. (this front lug was merely punched out of the sheet metal of the magazine body). Saloranta solved this problem by installing a separate beefed-up front lug. Basic specifications were a weight of 9.8 lb, a length of 43 in, barrel length of 21 in., a maximum rate of fire when used in automatic mode of 650 rounds per minute with an effective range of 1,500 feet (500 meters). With these features the LS-SLR was without doubt the most advanced Infantry Rifle existing in military use when World War 2 began. A small run of prototypes was produced in early 1935, with testing conducted through the spring and summer of the same year. The end result was that the new Rifle was accepted by the Finnish Ordanance Board in October 1935 as the replacement for the Moisin-Nagant, designated the LS-SLR/M/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle Model 1935 7.62mm) and an initial order was placed with VKT (the State Rifle Factory) for a series of large-scale production runs sufficient to fully re-equip the entire combat branch of the Finnish Army over a ten year timeframe.
The replacement program was planned as a ten-year effort, with VKT to manufacture 50,000 Rifles per year starting in 1936. This production target was not met in 1936, with initial difficulties with the production line resulting in only 30,000 Rifles being produced, but the target was met in 1937. In 1938, production was doubled after the Munich Crisi as VKT expanded manufacturing lines and moved to 24/7 manufacturing, running 3 shifts and working 7 days per week, with 70,000 Rifles produced. In 1939, running at full capacity on a 24/7 basis, VKT managed to produce 120,000 Rifles, meaning that by the time the Winter War broke out some 270,000 Rifles had been delivered, enough to equip a majority of the front-line combat infantry (Mosin-Nagant Rifles were at this stage largely relegated to use by rear-echelon, rear-area and support troops, the Home Guard and Boy-Soldiers. A limited number of the Finnish Manufactured Moisin-Nagant’s were retained within Infantry units as Bolt-Action Sniper Rifles fitted with Sniper Scopes. Front line Snipers often prefered the old Moisin-Nagant rather than the LS-SLR Sniper variant as a sniper rifle – the Finnish Army left the choice of weapon up to the individual sniper.
LS-SLR/35 7.62mm (Lahti-Salorante Self Loading Rifle 1935 7.62mm) – note the many similarities to the 1939 FN D light machinegun below (Picture below taken in Rannikkotykistömuseo) used by the Finnish Army during the (actual) Continuation War.
The LS-SLR/M/35 was a gas-operated semi-automatic which fired from the closed-bolt position in the semi--auto mode. It had an operator-adjustable gas regulator which worked on the "exhaust" principle. Under ideal conditions the major portion of the gas was passed The gas regulator offered firing with the lowest possible recoil combined with the ability to direct more gas into the system under adverse conditions or in case of fouling. In fully-automatic mode, however, the shooter receives considerable abuse from recoil, and the weapon climbs off-target quickly, making automatic fire only of marginal effectiveness .
The receivers were forged and milled with a projected lifespan of 80,000 rounds. The trigger mechanism was ingenious and well-designed. One disadvantage of the LS-SLR was the amount of work which went into machining the complex receiver (rather than the quicker and more cost effective stamping or casting techniques), bolt and bolt carrier. Additionally, the movement of the tilting bolt mechanism tended to return differently with each shot, affecting inherent accuracy of the weapon.
The LS-SLR/35 was a comfortable rifle to shoot and it handled well. The adjustable gas system, placement of the gas cylinder above the barrel, and alignment of the stock with the barrel axis all reduced the tendency of the weapon to climb in rapid semiauto fire. Although the rear sight had a tendancy to wobble, and many soldiers found the rear peep too close to the eye, the LS-SLR was capable of splendid accuracy with iron sights when fired by a well-trained shooter. Well-built, rugged, handsomely finished for a military rifle, and adequately reliable except under the most severe sand and dust conditions, the LS-SLR soon won an excellent and well deserved reputation with the Finnish soldier.
During early trials, it was soon determined that firing the LS-SLR in the full-auto mode was best restricted to only the most experienced soldiers who could fire in two to three-round bursts at extremely short distances. At ranges of 200 meters or more, employing an unsupported kneeling or sitting position, the second and third rounds in the burst usually hit at least 10 meters above and to the right of the first shot. Full-auto fire offhand with an 8- to 10-pound rifle in caliber 7.92mm was strictly an emergency procedure. In point of fact, after initial trials with the prototypes, the Finnish Army removed the selective-fire option entirely. An interesting variation that occurred during the Winter War was the field modification of LS-SLR rifles by soldiers for better handling. Nicknamed "The Bitch", these rifles were field modified, with their barrels cut off immediately in front of the gas block, and the unofficial permanent conversion to full-auto capability by simply filing down the selector.
From 1938 on, an optical sight was manufactured for the LS-SLR. Early testing with optical sights had resulted in the sights failing miserably to hold zero.. Bench-rest groups fired with scopes exhibited as much as 12 inches in vertical dispersion at 100 meters. This was completely unacceptable. The fault lay not in the optics, but in the use of the sheet-metal receiver cover as a mount. The thin receiver cover simply bent and twisted too much during the firing sequence. The solution was a rigid mount that completely replaced the original receiver cover. Following this modification, the scopes worked satisfactorily. Production runs from 1938 on included this new mount as standard. The standard optical scope made available to non-sniper qualified soldiers who achieved “marksman” grading were the 4x
During the Winter War, the LS-SLR/M/35 semi-automatic rifle with 20 round magazines was the standard infantry platoon weapon, providing an infantry unit with a solid base of accurate, rapid and highly effective firepower. The 4x optical sights and high standard of marksmanship training of the average Finnish soldier enhanced the effectiveness of this weapon and extended the range for accurate shooting outwards considerably. In conjunction with the standard Suomi M/31 submachineguns, LS-41 Light Machineguns and the LS-39 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles (as well as the grenades, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines with which each platoon was equipped), as well as the high level of tactical training and physical fitness, the average Finnish infantry platoon of late 1939 was an outstandingly dangerous opponent and, by the standards of other European Armies, out in front in a class of their own.
Alternative Scenario - Suomi M/31
In this alternative, the Finnish Army recognises the effectiveness of rhe Suomi M/31 from the early trials and testing. Following a series of exercises, it was decided to integrate the Sumoi M/1931 into the Finnish Armies TOE at a ratio of 2 M/31’s to each Infantry Section. Large scale production commenced in 1934, with 11,475 being produced in that year, 13,075 in 1935, approximately 16,000 in 1936 and 1937 and 20,000 per year in 1938 through to 1939 – a total of approximately 96,000 were in service with the Finnish Army at the time war broke out in late 1939.
What made the M/31 exceptional was the high quality of manufacturing, its high volume ammunition feed system and its accuracy. However, while it was a very good weapon, it was also poorly suited for wartime mass-production as it was slow and complicated to manufacture. The maximum production level, which Tikkakoski (the only Finnish manufacturer of the Suomi M/31) succeeded in achieving was about 1,000 submachineguns per month - some 12,000 per year. This was recognized as a limitation and in 1938, a newer version, the M/31B (aka the M/42 from actual history) was introduced. This resulted in a somewhat faster manufacturing processing, with approximately 1,900 per month being manufactured from 1938 on.
The standard magazines were the 20 and 50-round clips and the 70-round drum. The 50-round clips were somewhat unreliable and prone to cause jamming problems and had mostly been phased out by 1939.
To this end, the TOE was established as two Suomi M/1931’s and one LMG per Section (six and three per Platoon respectively).
General Purpose Machinegun L-41 7.62mm "Sampo": (designation needs to be changed btw
By 1934, the Finnish military had come to conclusion that the Maxim machineguns were both very heavy and structurally complicated. The heavy weight made using them in mobile operations difficult, as they were slow to move while the structural complexity increased their unreliability and made them more difficult to use. Organisationally, they were allocated to Battalion Machinegun Companies, which, as part of the reorganisation of the early 1930’s, the Finnish Army was doing away with. The intention was to allocate machineguns to Infantry Sections and Platoons, and that these would be lighter and much more portable than the Maxims. It was also intended that the new Section Machinegun would have a crew of only two soldiers, and that the ammunition would be the same calibre as the standard Infantry Assault Rifle which was to be introduced.
In late 1934, Aimo Lahti was asked to design a new Section General Purpose Machinegun. The gun was to be 7.62mm and belt fed, lightweight and onr of the key objectives was that it be lightweight, simple to maintain and highly reliable in the field. In addition, the Finnish Army evaluated a number of foreign designs, including the German MG34. Like all competent Armed Forces everywhere and, in the 1930’s perhaps even more than most, the Finnish Armed Forces observed development of new military equipment abroad. In 1934 the Finns had noted the introduction of the new belt-fed MG-34 machinegun to German use. The MG34 was the first modern general purpose machine gun. Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG34 could fire for much longer periods of time than conventional weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle or Bren, while being much lighter than crew-served weapons like the Vickers machine gun. The weapon was also quite versatile, able to be fed from drums or belts, and mounted on bipods, heavy tripods, or various pintle mounts for armored vehicles. It even became a primary defensive gun for the Luftwaffe, in its MG81 form. However, it did have its drawbacks, such as sensitivity to dust and comparatively expensive production. At the time it was introduced it had a number of advanced features and the general purpose machine gun concept that it aspired to was an influential one. However the MG34 was also expensive, both in terms of construction and the raw materials needed (49 kg (108 lb) of steel and its manufacture was too time-consuming to be built in the numbers required for the ever-expanding Finnish armed forces.
However, the Finnish Army did acquire half a dozen MG34’s for evaluation, with two being passed to Lahti for “reverse engineering.” In response to the Army request, Lahti designed the L-xx "Sampo" in late 1934. A number of design features from the MG34 were incorporated into the L-41 design, as were a number of improvements that were suggested from Lahti’s examination of the weapon. Getting the weapon to the protoype stage took time – the reason largely being the ammunition the Finnish military was using - designing a reliable belt-fed weapon that uses rimmed ammunition (such as the 7.62 mm x 54R used by Finnish military) while keeping the weight reasonable is much more difficult than designing a weapon using non-rimmed ammunition. The feeding process for rimmed ammunition tends to be more complicated than for non-rimmed. Basically this is because rimmed ammunition needs to be first pulled off the belt before it can be fed into the cartridge chamber while non-rimmed ammunition can be fed directly into the cartridge chamber while on the belt.
The first prototype of the belt-fed L-41 Sampo was finished in early 1935 and then tested. This first prototype version was a true general purpose machinegun, with a rifle-like butt, a pistol handle and a new tripod designed specially for the weapon. A bipod for light machinegun use was also included as standard equipment. The weapon was gas-action with an air-cooled barrel. In addition it had an adjustable rate of fire. In the first tests in late 1935, the steel used in the lock switches proved to be too soft and jammed the lock of each weapon during test firing. Once these parts were replaced with new ones that had been properly heat-treated the weapons successfully passed the tests. Suggested improvements included a redesign of the barrel, allowing replacing of the barrel in only few seconds. One handicap (if considered as such) was the very high rate of fire possibe – the maximun cyclic rate was some 1,000 shots/minute. A rate of fire this high overheated the barrel quickly and also wore them out very fast, so frequent changing of barrel was necessary during combat.However, the ability to adjust the rate of fire downwards was seen as a major plus, particularly where ammunition supply was restricted. Test reports from the troops field-testing the prototypes were mainly positive. The field tests revealed many problems, but nothing that could not be fixed.
Basically the troops considered the L-41 a good weapon in offensive use, but not particularly good when used in static defensive positions. This was not terribly surprising, as static defensive use was exactly where Maxim machineguns excelled. Other problems the early tests revealed included reliability problems with mixed/older ammunition, heated parts sticking, which made quickly replacing barrel and also carrying the weapon difficult, the tripod was not easy to put into the firing position and the anti-aircraft tripod was too fragile, and structural weaknesses in the recoil-spring and bolt parts. These were all problems which were rectified realtively easily and quickly for the second protype version. VKT also brought in a German specialist in the technology of mass production to work with Lahti and VKT on the manufacturing process and how this impacted the design. The second prototype was finished in the early 1936, with fine-tuning work on improvements continued until March - April of 1936.
The Finnish Army ordered a test series of 50 weapons in January of 1936, but because of these improvements the test series was not delivered until the summer of 1936. The manufacturer of the field test series was VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). These were issued to Army units for field tests immediately. As usual, the Army Ordnance Department had asked feedback in the form of test reports from the units to which the weapons of field test series were issued The feedback from Finnish field tests of the second protoype vesion was received in October of 1936 and proved exceptionally positive. Finnish Army planning was to replace the Maxim medium machineguns used by heavy machinegun companies in infantry units with the new weapon, and relegate the Maxim’s to fixed defensive positions on the Mannerheim and VKT Lines as well as in Coastal Defenses.
Plans made by Weapons HQ of the Finnish Army General Headquarters required all Infantry Units to be issued with the new general purpose machinegun. The planed TOE was for 10 of the new Machineguns for each Infantry Company, which required a total of xxxx of these weapons. Marshal Mannerheim approved the purchase of these machineguns on the 29th of December 1936 and a week later, on the 8th of January 1937, Major General Svanström (Head of Weapons HQ in Finnish Army GHQ) placed the initial order with VKT.
The final prototype design required considerably less tooling and was much simpler to build than the first version - it took 75 man hours to complete the new gun as opposed to 150 man hours for the first version (a 50% reduction in work). Estimated prices mentioned in an offer sent by VKT to the Army Ordnance Department on the 11th of November 1936 were for a 4,360 Finnish marks Price per Weapon for 10,000 weapons or more. Specifications were as follows:
Calibre: 7,62 mm x 54 R
Length: 1325 mm
Barrel length: 605 mm
Weight: 14,9 kg
Fire-rate: 600 - 1000/minute (adjustable)
Ammunition belt: 200-round continuous metal belt m/32, weight 2,6 kg fully loaded and 1,3 kg empty
Mount: Tripod, weight 16 kg
From a technical and manufacturing viewpoint the L-41 Sampo marked considerable progress and proved highly suitable for mass-production. A large percentage of the parts used were stamped and punched, while the basic structure was also quite simple, thus reducing production costs, time needed for manufacturing and the amount of materials needed considerably. VKT had the prototype ready and tested ready for mass-production, but in practice this was to prove much more difficult than anticipated. Rather ironically, modern and cost-effective manufacturing methods proved difficult for Finnish industry. Many of the most important parts of the L-41 (like the receiver) were stamped and/or punched and thus far VKT had manufactured receivers only by milling (machining) them. VKT lacked tools and machinery for this kind of work and building or acquiring them was the source of an unexpected delay..
For this reason VKT estimated that starting the mass-production might take about a year (in other words: until December of 1937). Considering this and the number (of L-41 machineguns) the Finnish Army needed, VKT suggested acquiring stamped parts needed for these weapons from Germany or Sweden. While manufacturing the quantities the Finns wanted was a very large work for the Finnish armaments industry, it was still a small amount for German manufacturers. The purchase from Germany was approved almost immediately, with approximately two years supply of stamped parts orders, giving VKT the necessary lead time to set up their own stamping and punching machinery (which they managed to do in 10 months). Production immediately moved to 24/7 in an attenpt to meet the Finnish Army’s needs. This was successful, and by the outbreak of the Winter War in late 1939, almost all Finnish Army units were fully equipped with the new machinegun, with production actually increasing from early 1939 on.
As the L-41 was phased in, the heavy machinegun companies were phased out and the Maxim’s relegated to fixed defensive positions. This was where they excelled. Their heavy weight (weapon + tripod combination was over 20 kg) made them less than mobile. In defensive warfare beating the capability of water-cooled Maxim just to keep going belt after belt would have been practically impossible for any air-cooled machinegun, so as long as there was no need for moving the machineguns to new place this would have been the area where Maxim ruled.
By way of contrast, the L-41 gave infantry units hugely emhanced firepweor was that was also considerably more mobile. This increased mobility allowed machineguns to be moved faster and more easily from one place to another, so the machineguns were able to move with the infantry and be available immediately they were needed. The L-41 proved exceptionally useful, reliable and robust weapon in the Winter War battlefields. The Finnish military went on to use the L-41 in many roles, including light machinegun (with bipod only), heavy machinegun (with tripod) and anti-aircraft weapon. It proved to be one of the most successful machineguns ever and continued to see plenty of use after World War 2. Indeed, Finland exported numbers of this weapon to Sweden during the Second World War, where it went on to become standard equipment for the Swedish Army.
20mm Panssarintorjunta (Anti-tank) Rifle L-39 “Norsupyssy" (Elephant Gun)
One of the early questions that was addressed in the equipment reviews of 1931/32 was that of a suitable man-portable light anti-tank rifle. There was no question that such a weapon was needed as a counter to the growing Soviet tank threat. The initial debate that ocurred was over the calibre of the weapon. Some officers wanted 12,7 mm weapons, some wanted 13.2 mm weapons and some (including Lahti) wanted 20 mm weapons. The initial problem with accepting a 20-mm weapon early on seems to have been the slow muzzle velocity of then-existing 20-mm ammunition. No 12.7mm weapons were evaluated but a number of 13.2 mm calibre weapons were tested starting in 1932. Lahti didn't like either calibre, as he thought both had too little armour-penetration and he was also unhappy with that fact that neither calibre had tracer ammunition available.
At this stage, Lahti also managed to get himself into an argument with Colonel Raatikainen of the Finnish Army’s Weapons Design Committee regaring a mount for the new AT-Rifle. Raatikainen wanted a mount similar to the Germans, suitable for both AA- and AT-shooting. Lahti considered this unsuitable for AT-use. Another argument surfaced as Raatikainen and Saario wanted the Swiss 20mm Oerlikon gun to be accepted (suspicions existed about Raatikainen and Saario representing Oerlikon and having their own financial interests in this matter). Lahti was also very much against this porposal as the Oerlikon 20mm gun had poor armour-penetration capability.
Artillery Generals Nenonen and Svanström also joined the argument, demanding a 20 mm AT-rifle capable of penetrating 30 mm of armour. Live fire tests in the summer of 1933 finally proved that 20 mm was much more effective then 13.2 mm and a decision to choose 20 mm as the calibre for the Finnish Army’s AT-rifle was made in late 1933. Lahti was given the go-ahead in October 1933 and within three weeks he had designed the weapon. Two prototypes were immediately made and tested. In the spring of 1934, these prototypes easily won tests against the 13mm weapons available On. 6th of September 1934 the new 20 mm Lahtu Anti-tank Rifle was accepted into the Finnish Army equipment list as the L-39.
The L-39 was a gas-action semiautomatic, but it wasn't a pure semiautomatic in the common sense meaning of the term. When a shot was fired and the bolt retreated back, it didn't return forward for the next shot until \released using a switch located on the front part of the weapons pistol grip. Releasing the bolt usually took place just after firing the shot as it reduced the feel of the recoil. The L-39’s Loading Mechanism was a crank-like handle located on the right-hand side of the weapon. The weapon fired from a closed bolt. Presumably the bolt not returning forward had been added to improve cooling. The rifle had both a bipod and a muzzle brake. The gas getting to the gas-action mechanism was adjustable (four settings: 1.5, 1.8, 2.2 and 2.5 indicated the diameter of the hole to gas-action mechanism). Magazines of the weapon were not exactly light – an empty magazine weighed 3.37-kg and a fully loaded magazine weighed 6.7-kg. An experienced shooter could achieve a rate of fire as high as 15 shots/minute. The protective arch in front of the trigger guard was there for a good reason - the weapon extracted its used (heavy and hot) cartridge cases below the weapon just in front of it. Sights were fully adjustable with rear sight settings from 200 to 1400 meters. Because of the magazine located on top the weapon the sights were located on the left side of the weapon. Typical equipment included four magazine pouches, each containing two magazines.
At this point, the Finnish Army also ordered 20 mm antiaircraft guns, and it was decided to manufacture all further 20 mm antitank rifles in 20 mm x 138 B (Rheinmetall-Borsig / Solothurn long) calibre (to allow the same ammunition to be used in both AA-guns and the AT-rifle). This obviously made ammunition supply easier, since this calibre ammunition was manufactured in Germany and Italy, while 20mmx113 would have been unique to Finland. However, this was not the only reason. The propellant charge which VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory, located in the town of Jyväskylä) wanted to use to reach the requested muzzle velocity could not be contained in 20mm x 113 cartridge case, however the 20mm x 138B cartridge case was large enough
Ammunition types used included AP, AP-T, APHE-T, HE-T and phosphorous shells. AP was most plentiful of ammunition types but not very suitable to some of the later uses for L-39. At the same time AP-T and APHE-T projectiles fired by these weapons were dangerous to even well-armoured ground attack aircraft. Well placed shots of HE and phosphorous shells hitting bunker vision slots could be used to keep enemy infantry pinned down during trench war period, phosphorous shells could also be used for setting forest fires during summer-time. However availability of HE, APHE-tracer and phosphorous shells for infantry used was typically more limited as these ammunition types were mostly used with antiaircraft-guns. Ammunition was manufactured by VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory). Domestic 20mm x 138B cartridge cases were manufactured by Oy Tikkakoski Ab and Oy Sytytin.
The first order, for 2,000 AT-rifles, was placed in September 1933, with VKT ramping up a separate production line over late 1933 / the first half of 1934. Meanwhile, the reorganisation and table of equipment planning for the Finnish Army had been completed, with planned TOE being 4 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles for every Infantry Company (approx. 20 per Battalion, 70 per Regiment, 220 per Division). With the reorganised and greatly enlarged Army, 10,000 x 20mm Anti-Tank Rifles were needed.In the meantime, further trials and exercises had determined that, with it’s AP and HE ammunition, the LT-39 was effective not just against Armoured Vehicles but also against targets such as bunker loopholes and landing craft up to 500 - 600 meter distance as well as for long-range sniping (for which a telescopic sight was introduced from 1937 on). Against heavier tanks, it proved useful against several weak spots, such as open top hatches, especially with phosphorus ammunition). It was even able to damage tank turrets and pin them to stop traversal of the cannon. In further trials, it was found that when placed on an improvised anti-aircraft mount it presented a threat to ground-attack aircraft pilots. Finnish troops almost immediately nicknamed the weapon "norsupyssy" (=elephant gun) and the weapon gained a reputation for its accuracy and effectiveness right from it’s introduction on.
The first production series of 2,000 L-39’s was finished by the 10th of April 1936. Production stepped up in 1936, with approximately 2,000 L-39’s per year being manufactured. By 1939, all Finnish Army Field Infantry Divisions were fully equipped up to the TOE strength, and a limited number of Training and War Reserve weapons were available and stockpiled. 1940 production was sufficient to replace combat losses and writeoffs, as well as add to the War Reserve stockpile. The weapon proved highly effective in the Winter War, able to penetrate the armor of all but the heaviest Soviet tanks. And even those it could damage when aimed at weakpoints. It was also used heavily as a long range sniper rifle and for bunker-busting as the Finnish Army moved onto the offensive. One weakness turned out to be the size and weight - it was just too large and heavy for one man to carry it alone long distances, but this was not a major problem.
Users commented that the L-39 was heavy and difficult to move in the battlefield. Even its magazine weighed almost two kilograms more than the Finnish Suomi M-31 submachine gun. The whole weapon weighed some 50 kilograms and it was usually towed by reindeer or horses, but could be carried by several men. In the field, a two man team was assigned to the gun to move and fire it. During winter, a sledge was used, while on road marches a vehicle was used if available.
Single Shot Grenade Launcher
In late 1933, the Finnish Army’s Ordanance Department had also tasked Aimo Lahti with a research contract for a prototype Single Shot portable grenade launcher. The broad concept was to come up with a lightweight portable launcher that could be easily carried by a single soldier in addition to his normal equipment and rifle and which would provide the infantry with a means of projecting out anti-personnel grenades well beyond throwing distance and obviate the need to call in artillery or mortar support where not necessary. The project was nicknamed “Platoon Artillery.”
With his usual flair for weapons design, Lahti took the concept and, within weeks, had designed and built an initial prototype. This closely resembled a sawn-off shotgun with an extra-large calibre of 50mm. It was basically a single-shot, break-open, shoulder-fired weapon, fairly lightweight and with a slow rate of fire (each round needed to be individually loaded). Designing and manufacturing grenade rounds to work with the launcher was a bigger challenge, and a satisfactory round was finally prototyped only in late 1934. Testing took place over the first quarter of 1935, with satisfactory results, and the Grenade Launcher was ordered into production in mid-1935, with an initial TOE of ten Grenade Launchers per Infantry Platoon (one for each of the Nine Infantry Squads in a Platoon and one within the Platoon Command Group). The Grenade Launcher was designated the M/35 and, being easy to manufacture and also cheap, was mass-produced in short order, with all units fully equipped by mid 1938.
Visibly, the M/35 grenade launcher resembled nothing so much as a large bore, break-action, sawn-off shotgun, and was very simple in design, having only five parts: a receiver group, a fore-end assembly, a barrel group, a sight assembly, and a stock. The fore-end assembly beded the barrel to the receiver. The stock wa made out of wood. A rubber pad was fixed to the shoulder stock to absorb some of the recoil. The front sight was a fixed blade. The rear sight was a folding ladder-style leaf-type sight. When folded, the leaf sight acted as a fixed sight for close range. A grenadier could also simply point and shoot with a high degree of accuracy. When unfolded, the leaf-type sight could be adjusted for ranges from 75-meters out to 375-meters, in 25-meters increments. Specifications were a weight of 6.45lb loaded (5.95lb empty), a length of 28.78in, barrel length of 14in., a rate of fire of 6 rounds/min, an effective range of 350m, and breech loaded. Each round weighed approximately 0.5lbs. A grenadier typically carried a load of 40 rounds (sometimes more) in addition to their standard equipment and their LS-SLR.
The weapon was easy to operate. To load, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch on the receiver group to the right. Gravity pulledl down the barrel, breaking it open, and exposing the breech. The hammer was cocked when the breech was opened. A round could then be loaded. The break action was then closed manually. Closing the breech caused the barrel locking latch to return to center. To fire, the grenadier pushed the safety forward, and pulled the trigger. To unload, the grenadier pushed the barrel locking latch to the right and opened the breech. The extractor pushed the case out, allowing the grenadier to grasp it and remove it. If a soldier was wearing gloves for winter operations, the trigger guard could be rotated to the left or right.
Three different ammunition types were produced for the M/35. Explosive, Smoke and Illumination. The 50 mm HE (high explosive) grenades fired from the M/35 travelled at a muzzle velocity of 75 meters per second. The grenade contained enough explosive to produce over 300 fragments that travelled at 1,524 meters per second within a lethal radius of 5 meters. This round incorporated a spin-activation safety feature which prevented the grenade from arming while still within range of the shooter; it armed itself after traveling a distance of about 30 meters. Even though the round would not arm at point blank ranges, the round still had enough kinetic energy to kill or seriously injure its target.
Once in operation, , the M/35 quickly became popular among Finnish soldiers Owing to its ease of use, reliability, and firepower. It was semi-seriously dubbed "platoon artillery” and nicknamed “Thumper” by the troops. During the Winter War, the M/35 proved invaluable, particularly for breaking up Soviet human wave attacks. The white phosphorous, smoke and illumination rounds also proved very useful. In action, many soldiers cut down the stock and barrel to make the M/35 even more portable. Major drawbacks in combat proved to be its single-shot nature. Having to reload after every shot meant a slow rate of fire and therefore an inability to keep up a constant volume of fire during a firefight. Also, for close-in situations, the minimum arming range (the round had to travel 30 meters to arm itself) and the blast radius meant a grenadier would have to either resort to a backup weapon, or fire and hope that the grenade would not arm itself and would act as a giant slow bullet.
Like I said, brain fart. Not even a draft. Just initial working notes. Anyone wants to volunteer to rewrite, go for it with my blessing...... If you're willing to put the effort in, I'll live with the results
I love this! I might be able to rewrite this in a few days. Just a question-
Why 50mm? Most RL launchers are 30-40mm.
Also, a note - remember, it's always almost a mag, not a clip.
For the love of everything holy in the world, Falcon, please, don't quote entire post, especially long one. Crops what you don't need and just keep what is relevant to your post.
You're right. Company. Somewhere I have some organizational tables for "my" Finnish units. Pretty much your standard triangles as I recall. "light" on manpower given the higher rate of fire with all the semi-auto and auto weapons as compared to actual "real" formations. I think I came up with a structure that gave the Finns around 20-25 Divisions overall.
Feel free to PM me. I have more stuff on this floating around, didn't include all the background. Be more than happy to bounce it backwards and forwards with you. Maybe one weapon at a time?
Why 50mm? In hindsight, no idea why I picked that. Maybe 1930's technology? Also, there was some Finnish guy that actually was trying to come up with I think it was a "shoulder fired mortar". I'll see what I can find as that would be part of the background for this. For the basic info, I just lifted it from the M79 so that was where it came from.
And a whole bunch of background stuff here.....
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MAIN.html
Here's something else that I was sent offline:
I've allways been interested in alternative history, I find your site interesting. In the infantry weapons section, there might be space for a better battle rifle, that unfortunately was not realised. As it happened, after the Civil War we had ~250 000 Mosin Nagants in inventory, and no money to speak of, so the service rifle type was kind of self-explanatory. However, the Army and the Civil Guard would've preferred a some type of (domestically manufactured) Mauser 98, probably in 7x57mm caliber. There actually were these kind of rifles for evaluation in 1920's.
What if, despite the lack of funds, a Sako manufactured Mauser 98 short rifle, with E. Mansner designed sights (like those in m/28-30 and m/39) could have been adopted? And maybe in the Swedish 6,5x55mm caliber, with it's excellent ballistic qualities? Riflemen would've had the best possible infantry rifle by 1930's standards; 100% reliable, accurate, ergonomic, easy to shoot, with fantastic ballistics (~140grs spitzer bullet required, of course). With Civil guard's enthusiasm for accurate rifles and marksmanship training, the results would surely have been outstanding. It is also worth keeping in mind, that Finland bought/received circa 77000 Swedish m96 Mauser rifles during the wars, together with at least 17 million cartridges. These were issued to Navy and coastal defence troops because of the non-standard caliber.
Talking about small arms, that mauser 98 -idea is very plausible, only thing (it is a major thing..) against it being lack of money. Semi-auto rifle was in the army's wish-list during the war, of course, but before the war only the american Garand was mature enough to issue to troops on a wide scale. Distrust towards semiautomatic rifles was common in the armies of 1930's.
If you like, you could maybe take the Sako 7x33 bird hunting round of 1946 and time-warp it into 1936 for example. This cartridge was planned during the war (~1942), as a hunting round, but could only be produced after the war. It's ballistics (5g bullet at ~730m/s) are not quite those of a true intermediate assault rifle round, but better than sub-machine gun rounds anyway. 7x33 has enjoyed a modest cult status in recent years, but the caliber is not well known, and it was out of production for awhile. As bird hunting rounds go, there are better alternatives aplenty these days, but accuracy was/is still quite good. The caliber was designed with 9mm loading equipment in mind, to see how long brass could be drawn with existing tools.
Another thing Finland was not too well off before the war was optics technology. If this state of affairs could've been improved somehow, sniping could have been made into viable part of infantry tactics. Here again, the Civil Guard most likely would have taken a leading role. But the possibility of a designated marksman in every squad with a 6,5mm scoped Mauser 98 is intriguing. Or even a sniper in every platoon..
The Lahti-Saloranta m/26 was not a very succesful LMG. I do believe the Swedish 6,5mm version of Browning BAR to have been a much better light machine gun, or squad automatic weapon. Yet, the title of the best machine gun before the war must go to MG34, I quess.
Last edited: