1942: The perfect fighter for the Finnish Front?
- Thread starter ShVAK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finnish airforce
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
I'm with Juha and Tyrod on this thread so far. Tamat punainenkaula poika et olet paljon umaratka.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Historically there were alliance proposals between Finland and Sweden so working with Sweden is relatively easy. On the other hand late 1930s Sweden wasn't exactly an aircraft production superstar.
Germany has military technology Finland needs. Finland has Nickel ore Germany needs. Such is the stuff of international commerce.
Germany has military technology Finland needs. Finland has Nickel ore Germany needs. Such is the stuff of international commerce.
Any ties to Germany are going to hurt Finland in the long run.
It's clear in the way Finland conducted their Continuation War that they had no intention or desire to defeat the Soviets totally, they just wanted their territory back, and no more.
Their (Finland's) goals and the 3rd Reichs weren't compatible.
It's clear in the way Finland conducted their Continuation War that they had no intention or desire to defeat the Soviets totally, they just wanted their territory back, and no more.
Their (Finland's) goals and the 3rd Reichs weren't compatible.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Switzerland and Sweden had all sorts of economic ties to WWII era Germany yet they did just fine. Why would Finland be any different?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Which is why Finland must procure the best weapons it can afford.
Finland never deluded itself into thinking it could beat Russia, It also appears it didn't have much confidence that Germany would either.
All it wanted was it's land back. It only had or needed limited help.
It was forced by circumstances to get help from Germany, and that like every other country in WW2 that got "assistance" from Germany was it's greatest misfortune.
All it wanted was it's land back. It only had or needed limited help.
It was forced by circumstances to get help from Germany, and that like every other country in WW2 that got "assistance" from Germany was it's greatest misfortune.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
In my pipe-dream on this one I'm tempted to say the perfect Finnish fighter would have come from getting cozy with the USA seeing if they could get some P-47's, talk about a single-seat versatile heavy-hitter.
- Thread starter
- #51
P-47's wouldn't have been great for fighting at 10-15K feet. It had speed, armor and firepower but its mid-altitude maneuverability and climb rate were both sluggish, the Jug would get mauled by mid-war Yak marks and La-5/7 where most air battles on the Finnish Front took place.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Defeating Russia isn't (or shouldn't be) the objective. 1930s Finland requires military defenses sufficient to make a Soviet invasion more expensive then it's worth. That's how deterrence works.
If Finland is considered too tough a nut to crack Stalin will look elsewhere for territory to add to his Soviet empire.
If Finland is considered too tough a nut to crack Stalin will look elsewhere for territory to add to his Soviet empire.
The Finns did prove to be a tough nut to crack for the Russians, but if they had done it with ANYBODIES help but Germany, it would have been better for them later on.
But no matter how good their defense was in the late 30's, no one would have expected them to be able to put up the fight they did in the winter war. The Russians nor anyone else suspeced the Finns would be that successful, nor did anyone expect the Russian army to be as clumsy as they first proved to be.
But no matter how good their defense was in the late 30's, no one would have expected them to be able to put up the fight they did in the winter war. The Russians nor anyone else suspeced the Finns would be that successful, nor did anyone expect the Russian army to be as clumsy as they first proved to be.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Mostly the result of good training, leadership and operational doctrine. 1939 Finland was poorly armed.
Training, leadership and operational doctrine are difficult to quantify and therefore don't always work as a deterrent. Military equipment and troop numbers are easy to count and therefore always have a deterrent effect.
Training, leadership and operational doctrine are difficult to quantify and therefore don't always work as a deterrent. Military equipment and troop numbers are easy to count and therefore always have a deterrent effect.
How many troops can a nation of 3.6 million put in the field ??
At it's peak during the Continuation war Finland armed forces got up to 400,000. When you consider that the usual population of 3.6 million would mean maybe 1.8 million would be males of all ages, that would mean most Finn males of military service age was in the military 1940-45 at one time or another. No nation can function for long if most of it's men are at the front.
Finland didn't have enough population to put up a standing army big enough to be a deterant, especially Russia and it's "steamroller". They compensated for that with superb training and tactics, but no one could suspect how effective that would be until a war was actually started.
At it's peak during the Continuation war Finland armed forces got up to 400,000. When you consider that the usual population of 3.6 million would mean maybe 1.8 million would be males of all ages, that would mean most Finn males of military service age was in the military 1940-45 at one time or another. No nation can function for long if most of it's men are at the front.
Finland didn't have enough population to put up a standing army big enough to be a deterant, especially Russia and it's "steamroller". They compensated for that with superb training and tactics, but no one could suspect how effective that would be until a war was actually started.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
About as many as modern day Israel. Israeli solders have the best weapons money (or foreign aid) can buy.
1939 Finland military forces had little more then small arms. Give 1939 Finland the best weapons money can buy and Stalin might steer clear. If he doesn't the slaughter will be several times worse then what happened historically during the Soviet invasion.
1939 Finland military forces had little more then small arms. Give 1939 Finland the best weapons money can buy and Stalin might steer clear. If he doesn't the slaughter will be several times worse then what happened historically during the Soviet invasion.
Wrong dave, Israel has over twice the population, but a standing army less than half the size of Finland, but with a large reserve. It's always been common knowledge that Israel cannot activate all it's reserve and keep it active for long .
Finland getting any aid from Germany was not in it's best long term interest.
I think the 3rd Reich saw Switzerland as more useful as a neutral, than it would be under their heel. Or not worth the time and effort it would take to subdue it.
