The Continuation War
- Thread starter Der Rattenkrieger
- Start date
Vonreuter said:
Finns had about 30 "tanks" 13 of them were Vickers (http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps161007/2004_16100704.jpg) Only 6 of them were able to tanke part in battle, rest of them were broken before the war even began, and few of those 6 tanks got some problems and stopped before their first battele, rest of the tanks were defeated in the first battle, so after the first weeks of Winterwar Finland didn
Last edited:
Upvote
0
myzko said:
If I remember this correctly the city was practicly lost when Stugs got to help defending, Im not 100% sure... But That I know for sure that Panzerfausts and schrecks reached troops just when the city was lost... After the battle the officer whos responsibility it was to defend the city shot him self in the head, he choosed that instead of living his life in shame for loosing the 2 capital of Finland...
But after loosing Viipuri Finnish live managed to stop USSR army, at that point we were better armed than ever before with our new tanks, fighters , dive bombers and panzerfausts and schrecks Finns started prepare for re-capturing of Viipuri, but at that point Finnish Marshal Mannerheim desided to make peace now when we still could, we might be able to re-capture our own areas, but after Allies would defeat Germany we would be next, and that battle we could never win, so better to make peace now and lose some land than lose all our lands and our independence...
Upvote
0
myzko said:
That was in continuation war when they bought and received modern equipment from Germany, even then, think of it a bit: 30 StuGs against several hundred, probably even couple thousand, Soviet armored vehicles. No matter how good you are and how bad is your opponent, you will inevitably get overrun, if for no other reason but simply because you can't shoot fast enough.
Upvote
0
Spade said:
Yes that is what what atleast I ment
In winter war there were only infantry defending the city, in continuation war there were atleast some tanks on the way to defend the city but they were badly late
Upvote
0
Spade said:
From what I read/and heard, the stug crew performed really good, and destroyed ALOT of Russian tanks, and I mean ALOT!
oreign tanks in Finnish service
Soviet tanks in Finnish service 1939-1945 A-20 Komsomolets tractors 202 BA-3 / BA-6 / BA-10 28 BT-5 Model 1933 / BT-5 Model 1934 - BT-7 Model 1935 / BT-7 Model 1937 - D-8 1 FAI / FAIM-M / BA-20 21 ISU-152 2 KW-1 Model 1942 1 KW-1E z ekranami 1 OT-130 Model 1933 4 OT-133 Model 1939 3 (converted to guntanks in -42) OT-26 Model 1931 2 (training) T-26 Model 1931 14 T-26 Model 1933 61 T-26 Model 1937/T-26 Model 1939 15 T-26T 2+5 converted for training T-28 / T-28 z ekranami 7 T-34/76 Model 1940/41/43 7 T-34/85 Model 1944 7 T-37 30 T-38 / T-38M2 18 T-50 1
Foreign tanks in Finnish service per 1 Jan 1945 BA-10/BA-10M 23 BA-20/BA-20M 18 BT-42 (BT-7 chassis,114mm gun) 10 ISU-152V 1 KW-1 Model 1942 1 KW-1E Model 1940 1 Landsverk Anti II (AA-tank) 6 PzKpfw. IV J (German supplied) 15 StuG III G (German supplied) 47 T-26 (Model 1933, 1937/38, 1939) 75 T-26E (Vickers) 19 T-28E 7 T-34/76 7 T-34/85 7 T-38-34, T-38-KW 12 T-50 1
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sormus said:
Stug was a good tank, and since it didnt have a turret that can turn it was cheapto bilt thats why we bought them
Forest was actually a perfec place for our tanks, much vegetation and short distances that you can see, enemy has to stay on the roads, it was easy for Stugs to lie in ambush and wait for Russian tanks http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/2995_sturmi.jpg
Upvote
0
myzko said:From what I read/and heard, the stug crew performed really good, and destroyed ALOT of Russian tanks, and I mean ALOT!
Yep, Finland got 30 stugs, 8 of them were destroyed in the war. These 30 Stugs destroyed over 80 soviet tanks...
And this is a fact!
Upvote
0
I simply have to reply to this thread.
The idea of including Finns is purely Awesome and I will lick the Dev's arses for years to come if they choose to implement this no matter if it is in the form of a free patch or an addon.
Using these as reasons for not having Finns would be unreasonable.
The Winter War deserves special recognition because:
1. It was the only armed conflict going on at the time! The whole world payed a lot of attention to it.
2. Historical signifigance:
- Soviet Russia was humilated so badly.
- Dividing factor between the Allies - US / UK / France could not accept Soviet actions.
3. Military signifigance:
- Finns single handedly held way over 1000km of Eastern Front
- Finns caused MASSIVE casualties to the Soviets (with primitive equipment, we were always badly outgunned but rarely outfought)
- In relation to the fighting forces Finland had, Finland EASILY caused the most serious casualties. Way better than that in the case of Romania, for example, and this is not so as to put Romanian war effort down.
Lets hear it from Winston Churchill:
In addition, the theater would be something almost completely unique. No games have ever focused on the Winter war, Continuation war or the War of Lapland. Some games have indirectly allowed you to play the events of the war but they have always been very vague (eg. IL-2 Forgotten Battles).
While I'm able to throw in at least a dozen of solid arguments in favour of the Finns, you rely on only a couple, and even then what you're saying is basically "we shouldnt have Finns because they had a minor role, you should instead do our nation..." etc, well, thats just weak for an argument. Regarding your point 1. well surely you spotted Winston Churchill's quote and the fact that at the time, Winter war was the only active conflict. Also as I said we caused the most severe casualties in relation to our armed forces - by far.
Regarding your second point - this is simply completely false historically. Either you don't have an idea of what you're talking about, or you're lying. Here's a map of the furthest Finnish advance on the southern front:
The grey border illustrates the area we lost as a result of Winter War. As you can see, we advanced MUCH further than "the areas we regarded as ours". In addition we cut the Murmansk railroad, forcing the Soviets to provide resupplies to Leningrad through a much longer and more difficult route. That said, when Hitler ordered Mannerheim to cut the Murmansk railroad further north where it would result in a total loss of supply for the Soviets (->collapse of the front line), he denied. He also denied the repeated requests to join the siege of Leningrad, which by the way, would make an awesome Ostfront map.
You also made some ridiculous remarks of us not manufacturing our own weaponry. We did buy lots of second hand stuff, most importantly the Maxim Machineguns and Degtyarev DP/DT 1928. Still again your arguments of us not manufacturing our own weapons is ridiculous - either you don't know what you're talking of, or are falsifying facts to get your own country implemented rather than Finland. The fact is, we manufactured lots of basic infantry rifles - most bolt actions we had were self made, seriously modified copies of the Russian equivelants. We also made our own AT-rifles and mortars. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, we made the SUOMI-submachine gun KP/-31. As said, the Soviets didn't have a submachinegun at the time of the Winter War, but the Finns did. Beyond that, the Suomi SMG was EASILY the best submachinegun in the entire WWII. It could use straight magazines or 72 round drums, had a great ROF of 900rpm, and most importantly, it's accuracy was AMAZING in comparison to ANY other SMG's of the era, and to provide one more detail, it was the ONLY SMG that featured quick barrel changes in seconds without tools.. INFACT, when the Russians designed the ppsh, it was largely a modified ripoff of the Suomi SMG (for easier & cheaper reproduction so it could be made by the million).
Anyways, I think I've made my point.
Actually I would not only like to see Finns, but all the other forgotten parties of WWII: Norwegians, Polish, Romanians, etc - all of them. I'm so sick of the typical 101st airborne in Normandy / US. Marines in Normandy bullcrap. Lets forget the movies stuff and get down to the small neutral countries that were caught in the turmoils of two superpowers settling their differences. Because it was those small countries that so often wanted to avoid the war the least but when it came, fought the hardest, suffered the most, and gained the least. Which of these countries benefited from their actions? None (except Finland that kept her independence)! They were all mercilessly sucked into the Soviet Union and their populations were treated as 2nd class citizens AT THE VERY BEST.
MORE INFO on the Suomi SMG, an amazing weapon that saw service up until 1982:
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
And lastly - Finland lost both the Winter War and the Continuation War. We lost 12% of our territory, including key economical and agricultural areas. We also had to pay over 600 million dollars. By the way, we're the only country in the world that paid the war indemnities
The idea of including Finns is purely Awesome and I will lick the Dev's arses for years to come if they choose to implement this no matter if it is in the form of a free patch or an addon.
Using these as reasons for not having Finns would be unreasonable.
The Winter War deserves special recognition because:
1. It was the only armed conflict going on at the time! The whole world payed a lot of attention to it.
2. Historical signifigance:
- Soviet Russia was humilated so badly.
- Dividing factor between the Allies - US / UK / France could not accept Soviet actions.
3. Military signifigance:
- Finns single handedly held way over 1000km of Eastern Front
- Finns caused MASSIVE casualties to the Soviets (with primitive equipment, we were always badly outgunned but rarely outfought)
- In relation to the fighting forces Finland had, Finland EASILY caused the most serious casualties. Way better than that in the case of Romania, for example, and this is not so as to put Romanian war effort down.
Lets hear it from Winston Churchill:
In addition, the theater would be something almost completely unique. No games have ever focused on the Winter war, Continuation war or the War of Lapland. Some games have indirectly allowed you to play the events of the war but they have always been very vague (eg. IL-2 Forgotten Battles).
While I'm able to throw in at least a dozen of solid arguments in favour of the Finns, you rely on only a couple, and even then what you're saying is basically "we shouldnt have Finns because they had a minor role, you should instead do our nation..." etc, well, thats just weak for an argument. Regarding your point 1. well surely you spotted Winston Churchill's quote and the fact that at the time, Winter war was the only active conflict. Also as I said we caused the most severe casualties in relation to our armed forces - by far.
Regarding your second point - this is simply completely false historically. Either you don't have an idea of what you're talking about, or you're lying. Here's a map of the furthest Finnish advance on the southern front:
The grey border illustrates the area we lost as a result of Winter War. As you can see, we advanced MUCH further than "the areas we regarded as ours". In addition we cut the Murmansk railroad, forcing the Soviets to provide resupplies to Leningrad through a much longer and more difficult route. That said, when Hitler ordered Mannerheim to cut the Murmansk railroad further north where it would result in a total loss of supply for the Soviets (->collapse of the front line), he denied. He also denied the repeated requests to join the siege of Leningrad, which by the way, would make an awesome Ostfront map.
You also made some ridiculous remarks of us not manufacturing our own weaponry. We did buy lots of second hand stuff, most importantly the Maxim Machineguns and Degtyarev DP/DT 1928. Still again your arguments of us not manufacturing our own weapons is ridiculous - either you don't know what you're talking of, or are falsifying facts to get your own country implemented rather than Finland. The fact is, we manufactured lots of basic infantry rifles - most bolt actions we had were self made, seriously modified copies of the Russian equivelants. We also made our own AT-rifles and mortars. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, we made the SUOMI-submachine gun KP/-31. As said, the Soviets didn't have a submachinegun at the time of the Winter War, but the Finns did. Beyond that, the Suomi SMG was EASILY the best submachinegun in the entire WWII. It could use straight magazines or 72 round drums, had a great ROF of 900rpm, and most importantly, it's accuracy was AMAZING in comparison to ANY other SMG's of the era, and to provide one more detail, it was the ONLY SMG that featured quick barrel changes in seconds without tools.. INFACT, when the Russians designed the ppsh, it was largely a modified ripoff of the Suomi SMG (for easier & cheaper reproduction so it could be made by the million).
Anyways, I think I've made my point.
Actually I would not only like to see Finns, but all the other forgotten parties of WWII: Norwegians, Polish, Romanians, etc - all of them. I'm so sick of the typical 101st airborne in Normandy / US. Marines in Normandy bullcrap. Lets forget the movies stuff and get down to the small neutral countries that were caught in the turmoils of two superpowers settling their differences. Because it was those small countries that so often wanted to avoid the war the least but when it came, fought the hardest, suffered the most, and gained the least. Which of these countries benefited from their actions? None (except Finland that kept her independence)! They were all mercilessly sucked into the Soviet Union and their populations were treated as 2nd class citizens AT THE VERY BEST.
MORE INFO on the Suomi SMG, an amazing weapon that saw service up until 1982:
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
And lastly - Finland lost both the Winter War and the Continuation War. We lost 12% of our territory, including key economical and agricultural areas. We also had to pay over 600 million dollars. By the way, we're the only country in the world that paid the war indemnities
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, that would be nice.
Implementing the larger battles of the Winter War or the Continuation War would be difficult, but possible. Think strong defensive positions for the Finns and a few trenches, and make the Soviets attack over a relatively open area. Trick is, Soviets have more reinforcements, and maybe a T-26, while the Finns only have a few AT Jaegers (with either scatchels or molotovs if the latter could be implemented, or the Lahti ATR). Like Basovka, except slightly more hard for the attacker, but they'd have way more respawns and artillery and maybe a tank. This would be realistic, because the Soviets so often used the all out frontal assaults without any tactical manouvers, trusting their massive numbers and better weaponry (with the exception of no SMG's in winter war). Now have snowy fields with the wind howling and some snowflakes thrown around in the wind, and that'd be about perfect
Smaller skirmishes could be modeled with even reinforcement counts. Would be sweet to see a forest, by the way, because the forests were a critical component. The Soviets weren't used to the forests and therefore they gave the Finns a key advantage.
Yet another reason as to why it could be done: It would be very easy! Externally the weapons were similar. The existing models could be modified. You'd practically only have to create a new map, create models for the Finnish player and slap a new skin on the Ivan and maybe give him a coat for the winter. Add a T-26 and there's Winter War for you, it could be quickly realised.
Implementing the larger battles of the Winter War or the Continuation War would be difficult, but possible. Think strong defensive positions for the Finns and a few trenches, and make the Soviets attack over a relatively open area. Trick is, Soviets have more reinforcements, and maybe a T-26, while the Finns only have a few AT Jaegers (with either scatchels or molotovs if the latter could be implemented, or the Lahti ATR). Like Basovka, except slightly more hard for the attacker, but they'd have way more respawns and artillery and maybe a tank. This would be realistic, because the Soviets so often used the all out frontal assaults without any tactical manouvers, trusting their massive numbers and better weaponry (with the exception of no SMG's in winter war). Now have snowy fields with the wind howling and some snowflakes thrown around in the wind, and that'd be about perfect
Smaller skirmishes could be modeled with even reinforcement counts. Would be sweet to see a forest, by the way, because the forests were a critical component. The Soviets weren't used to the forests and therefore they gave the Finns a key advantage.
Yet another reason as to why it could be done: It would be very easy! Externally the weapons were similar. The existing models could be modified. You'd practically only have to create a new map, create models for the Finnish player and slap a new skin on the Ivan and maybe give him a coat for the winter. Add a T-26 and there's Winter War for you, it could be quickly realised.
Upvote
0
**quick note**
Centar: iirc Suomi KPP is a modified and improved version of german Bergmann M20, which was used prior Suomi KPP in Finland. Best SMG in WW2 by a long shot, since all russian smg:s are suomi kpp ripoffs. (wheres KF-43 btw, or is it the same as PPS-43?)
Adding finns & finnish scenarios to the game would need A LOT more weaponry.
Anyone suggested that finn-soviet maps should have "can steal enemy vehicles" and molotovs would only do damage to crew?
Centar: iirc Suomi KPP is a modified and improved version of german Bergmann M20, which was used prior Suomi KPP in Finland. Best SMG in WW2 by a long shot, since all russian smg:s are suomi kpp ripoffs. (wheres KF-43 btw, or is it the same as PPS-43?)
Adding finns & finnish scenarios to the game would need A LOT more weaponry.
Anyone suggested that finn-soviet maps should have "can steal enemy vehicles" and molotovs would only do damage to crew?
Upvote
0
No offense, but you and the others are so ****ing stubborn and full of **** that it's impossible to argue with you. You're either morons or just like to irk people. I feel like I'm talking to a wall of bricks seriously. Now let's get this done and over with because I can't waste my time on you forever.
1. Go to www.redorchestragame.com and click on Overview. Do you follow me so far?
2. Now read the first 5 lines.
I don't know what you get, but this is what I see on my screen:
3. If you haven't realized by now what this game is about I'm going to save you the suspense and tell you right away.
IT'S ABOUT THE RUSSO-GERMAN WAR. Do you follow me so far?
4. Which were the 3 biggest armies in that war?
A: RKKA, Wehrmacht, Royal Romanian Army
5. Which armies tied down most enemy resources in that war?
A: RKKA, Wehrmacht, Royal Romanian Army
No matter what you say can't change that order. Thank you and have a nice day.
1. Go to www.redorchestragame.com and click on Overview. Do you follow me so far?
2. Now read the first 5 lines.
I don't know what you get, but this is what I see on my screen:
3. If you haven't realized by now what this game is about I'm going to save you the suspense and tell you right away.
IT'S ABOUT THE RUSSO-GERMAN WAR. Do you follow me so far?
4. Which were the 3 biggest armies in that war?
A: RKKA, Wehrmacht, Royal Romanian Army
5. Which armies tied down most enemy resources in that war?
A: RKKA, Wehrmacht, Royal Romanian Army
No matter what you say can't change that order. Thank you and have a nice day.
Upvote
0
SMERtSHpionam said:
How does the term Russo-German War exlude Finnish army from it? I reckon that Romania isnt either one of Russian or Germany, or am I wrong?
And ofcourse Romania had more troops on the front, they have much more ppl as opposed to finlands only 3.5million of total people.
Upvote
0