Military power of the Baltic States before 1939

[Harri]

In 1939 the combined military power of the three Baltic States Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia was bigger that for example of Finnish Defence Forces and their armies were better equipped. Their military bugdets were high, about 25% of all expenses. Still the area they would have needed to defend was only about the half the one Finns defended during Winter War. Balts could have mobilized more than 360.000 men and form 18 infantry divisions (Estonia 4, Lithuania 6 and Latvia 8 ). Together Finland and Baltic States would have 0,5 - 1 million men which would have been a serious opponent even to USSR and perhaps prevented their attack.

Baltic States unlike Finland chose to surrender without fight. Finns fought against USSR 105 days and our army still remained in a rather good shape. The intention of this thread is not to deliberate upon the reasons why Balts and Finns made so different decisions but to compare the Finnish and Baltic troops and equipment and discuss about these.

First of all how were Baltic units organized and equipped? What strengths or weaknesses their land forces, navies and air forces had?

[David Thompson]

Harri -- This website may be helpful:

Armies! European Armies 1920-1950
http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/index.html

[Harri]

Thank you for answering David.

But I'm still waiting for the real discussion because this debate has been... not so great success... :roll:

[Steve]

The bulk of the competent Finnish army defended the Karelian Ismus against the bulk of the committed incompetent Soviet forces. The Ismus is less than 100 miles wide, the Baltic states had frontiers hundreds of miles long meaning they could not have the equivalent of the Mannerheim Line to fight behind. North of the Mannerheim Line were vast forests with only a few roads through them not the frontier situation in the Baltics. The Soviets could easily (or eventually) have swept the Baltics armies away, they committed about 45 divisions against the Finns so they had plenty left to deal with the Balts. Germany had agreed that they were in the Soviet sphere so no help there.

Even if you think a bear will eventually attack you it is unlikely that you would kick him because he will certainly attack you then.

[Mark V]

I agree Steve on that geography was greatly limiting factor for defence abilities of Baltic countries. Open borders against USSR.

Also - was there any kind co-operation between Baltic states defence forces ??

Finns had with Estonia on blocking of Gulf of Finland.


Mark V

[Harri]

I agree Steve on that geography was greatly limiting factor for defence abilities of Baltic countries. Open borders against USSR.

How open their boders actually were? Balts didn't have any fortifications? How could they then spend so much money for their defence which didn't work at all when needed? Had they used their money for wrong weapons?

Also - was there any kind co-operation between Baltic states defence forces ??
Finns had with Estonia on blocking of Gulf of Finland.

That's a very good question. I'd be surprised if there had not been any co-operation.

In 1939 Red Army was much smaller than it was in 1941 and later. About one third of it fought against Finland. And there were battles also against Japanese in Siberia at the same time. Could the Balts and Finns together managed to prevent Soviet attack at least in 1939 or 1940?

What kind of non-agression pacts Balts had with USSR in the 1930's?

[Mark V]

How open their boders actually were? Balts didn't have any fortifications? How could they then spend so much money for their defence which didn't work at all when needed? Had they used their money for wrong weapons?

Hi,

Estonia was a bit protected by geography - but not against "Belgium syndrome" - attack through open border between Estonia and Latvia. I don't know about the fortifications on Estonia/USSR border - but considering the financial restrictions of 30s there was hardly anything to deter major power like Soviet Union.

I think Baltic states were in that kind of situation in late -39, where word desparate is gross understatement. Red Army could occupy them at will.

Finland for example had only around 100km:s of front (in Karelian Isthmus) that could be compared to terrain in Baltic states - and defending it was hard enough during Winter War, consuming the large majority of Finnish forces. Terrain north of Lake Ladoga was totally different matter...

Alliance of Finland and Baltic states in my opinion would had very little effect - without the participation of Sweden, and Swedes would not come along before Winter War.

Regards, Mark V

[nublu]

Hi!

It's really interesting topic what you have started - Harri! But also very wide area to discuss. That's why i was waiting a bit to see is there any interested on such discussion.

Few facts for beginning.

There was formal military cooperation between Estonia and Latvia. Or actaully - Estonia and Latvia had agreement on military cooperation. Estonia and Finland never had such agreement. But actual cooperation between Estonia and Finland was even deeper than between Estonia and Latvia.

Lithuania had conflict with Poland because of Vilnius (or Vilno in Polish) area. And thats why there was no military cooperation between Lithuania and other Baltic states. Because Estonia and Latvia were not interested to get involved in this dispute.

Sure Baltic states spent quite a amount of money on defence. Still their budgets were so small that they couldn't afford nothing special.

On budget's and stuff what was bought perhaps bit later

Toomas

[Harri]

It's really interesting topic what you have started - Harri! But also very wide area to discuss.

That's why I started this thread. Many of us know what happened in 1939 and 1940 but what was the reality behind these happenings. This is not a "what if" thread but we can perhaps also discuss about what chances Balts would have had against USSR - if any - and what was the real military power of Baltic States.

There was formal military cooperation between Estonia and Latvia. Or actaully - Estonia and Latvia had agreement on military cooperation. Estonia and Finland never had such agreement. But actual cooperation between Estonia and Finland was even deeper than between Estonia and Latvia.

I see. My point was that instead of defending all the borders grouping troops only to "outer borders" (to the border of USSR) mutually defending forces would have strengthened significantly. Some kind of military co-ordination would have also needed for that. It is interesting that the threat of USSR didn't cause any serious negotiations between the Baltic States. The threat was anyway the same for all three countries.

Lithuania had conflict with Poland because of Vilnius (or Vilno in Polish) area. And thats why there was no military cooperation between Lithuania and other Baltic states. Because Estonia and Latvia were not interested to get involved in this dispute.

Yes, that's what I had forgot. What kind of battles there were between Poland and Lithuania and what was their effect on the Lithuanian Army?

Sure Baltic states spent quite a amount of money on defence. Still their budgets were so small that they couldn't afford nothing special.

Had the Balts only outdated weapons in 1939? One of the explanations why Finnish military budget was so small in the 1920's and 1930's was that in case of war our weapons and equipment would be anyway obsolete so it was not sensible to buy "rusting steel".

On budget's and stuff what was bought perhaps bit later

Finland also spend money for defence but it was directed to Mannerheim line concrete bunkers, submarines and coastal armoured ships. These later ones have later criticized because there would have been much more important needs. Where there any such "wrong" acquisitions in Baltic countries? Maybe someone can also tell more about Finnish military budgets so we can compare these with the Baltic budgets?

[Harri]

Estonia was a bit protected by geography - but not against "Belgium syndrome" - attack through open border between Estonia and Latvia. I don't know about the fortifications on Estonia/USSR border - but considering the financial restrictions of 30s there was hardly anything to deter major power like Soviet Union.

So, Balts should have made the conslusions and co-operated with USSR in the 1930's? Why did they spend any money for defence if they had no chance anyway? After the war guerrilla warfare againts Soviets continued years so why it wouldn't have worked also in a larger scale? Had they chosen a wrong strategy and tactics?

I think Baltic states were in that kind of situation in late -39, where word desparate is gross understatement. Red Army could occupy them at will.

Were their armies ready to defend their countries or did they just notice the desperate situation (like Denmark in 1940) and surrendered? Where there any plans for defending countries? What kinds of plans?

Finland for example had only around 100km:s of front (in Karelian Isthmus) that could be compared to terrain in Baltic states - and defending it was hard enough during Winter War, consuming the large majority of Finnish forces. Terrain north of Lake Ladoga was totally different matter...

That was of course true but there was also 1000 km more border which was Finns effectively defended with considerable forces and eventually also USSR was ready to sign peace agreement.

Alliance of Finland and Baltic states in my opinion would had very little effect - without the participation of Sweden, and Swedes would not come along before Winter War.

My point was that USSR would have been in a new situation if it had had 0,5 - 1 million men against it instead of one country's 200.000 - 300.000 men. USSR tried to knock out Baltic countries and Finaldn one by one but if they would have been in a mutual front Balts and Finns could perhaps buy some more time to prepare for war.

Against Finland USSR had one third or fourth of its current forces. It is a good question if they had used half or more of their forces. I doubt that.

Sweden was militarily very weak in 1939 (some have said it was weaker than Finland) and for example their air force had only a handful of obsolescent Gloster Gladiator fighters (Finns managed to buy better planes from USA also - Brewsters). Sweden had well equipped and trained troops. Should we also look the Swedish military situation in case it would have been one country in a possible military alliance?

---

This is a strange discussion: more questions have been arised than have been answered...

[nublu]

I see. My point was that instead of defending all the borders grouping troops only to "outer borders" (to the border of USSR) mutually defending forces would have strengthened significantly. Some kind of military co-ordination would have also needed for that. It is interesting that the threat of USSR didn't cause any serious negotiations between the Baltic States. The threat was anyway the same for all three countries.

Following text will be mostly on Estonia, because i know about Estonian military power and defence plans more than about Latvia and Lithuania.

According to Estonian defence plans we had only one enemy - Russia. And all eforts were concentrated to withstand attack from east.

We had 3 divisions, which actually were sort of frames to build up army. 1st and 2nd divisions were on eastern border. 1st north from lake Peipus, 2nd south of it. 3rd Division HQ was in Tallinn. And it's task was to be reserve and to defend coast of Gulf of Finland.

Actually there were 2 kind of units in Estonian army - so called cover units (katteüksused in Estonian) and others. In all other (infantry) units there were only training. Training for privates who were invited to serve their obligatory duty.

All cover units (which were situated near to our eastern border, as you can imagine ) were fully manned and fully equipped. Ready to withstand attack from east. And let other units to be mobilized to war time strenght.

So, as you can see, Estonia was not guarding all it's borders. Main task was to secure the Eastern border.

Lithuania had conflict with Poland because of Vilnius (or Vilno in Polish) area. And thats why there was no military cooperation between Lithuania and other Baltic states. Because Estonia and Latvia were not interested to get involved in this dispute.

Yes, that's what I had forgot. What kind of battles there were between Poland and Lithuania and what was their effect on the Lithuanian Army?

Battles were only on 1921 when Poland occupied Vilno area. After it there was mostly diplomatic warfare. But anyways it spoiled the Baltic cooperation, as Poland was strongest military power in region. And Estonia and Latvia had quite good relations with Poland. There wasn't even any diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland until 1938 (or smthng similar) while Estonia had wide-scale military cooperation with Poland on same time.

Had the Balts only outdated weapons in 1939? One of the explanations why Finnish military budget was so small in the 1920's and 1930's was that in case of war our weapons and equipment would be anyway obsolete so it was not sensible to buy "rusting steel".

Not only. But mostly. Estonia made quite a big attempts to buy modern weapons in the end of 30's. But it was too late.

We actually didn't have modern military aviation.

No fighter airplanes (there were only 4 Bristol Buldog fighters in Estonian air force. 1 of them was just for spares, one was under renovation, plane's under renovations changed, but there was constantly one plane under renovations. and only 2 planes were avaible for actual service. most of the time. sometimes only one.) There was and order for Supermarine Spitfire's but too late - delivery was cancelled because of war.

no modern bomber airplanes. Was only one Avro Anson. For evaluation. Not even any orders to purchase some.

Were several good training planes. Advanced trainers were "made in Estonia".

Were several army cooperation planes. Lysanders were also not delivered, but last delivered purchase was from Germany - 6 Hs 126 recce and light bomber planes, 5 of them were delivered. 1 was broken during delivery flight.

AA artillery - was quite weak. There were several orders in the end of 30's. Some were delivered, some not.

AT artillery - also quite week. There were some Solothurn AT rifles produced under licence in Arsenal, Tallinn. Some Bofors AT guns. But not enough.

All infantry rifles were from WWI age. Also MG's. Most of ordinary artillery also. Fortifications on Eastern border were from earth and wood. Very few concrete bunkers. Plans of those fortifications were sold to Soviets by one Estonian officer. And Estonians knew it, because this traitor was caught and was in prison in Estonia.

But we had quite a lot well trained men. Who had served in Estonian units and were ready to fight. But they didn't have the possibility to fight under Estonian flag. And they had to show their courage and training under other flags. And they did it.

About those bad orders - in Estonia there is told that purchase of those 2 submarines ("Kalev" and "Lembit") in the beginning of 30's took away most of defence budget for several years. And because of it all other purchases were too late...

rgrds

Toomas

[Harri]

According to Estonian defence plans we had only one enemy - Russia. And all eforts were concentrated to withstand attack from east.
...
So, as you can see, Estonia was not guarding all it's borders. Main task was to secure the Eastern border.

That was reasonable.

Estonia made quite a big attempts to buy modern weapons in the end of 30's. But it was too late.
We actually didn't have modern military aviation.

Hmm, Estonian "Air Force" was weaker than I remembered. How about in Latvia and Lithuania?

Finns had also late Bristol Bulldog mk. IV fighters but they were so slow that even Soviet bombers easily let them taste their exhaust fumes. Still they scored several Soviet planes!

Finland had been long-sighted and ordered cheap Fokker D.XXI fighters, Fokker C.X dive bombers and fast Bristol Blenheim mk. I bombers and licences for building more planes and Bristol engines in Finland. These seem to have been very invaluable decisions and correct in the mid 1930's.

It is interesting that Estonia had ordered Spitfires. I have never heard that Finns would even even considered it. All mentioned types for FAF were Messerchmitt Bf 109 (D or E?), Heinkel He 112, Hawker Hurricane mk. I, and American Curtiss A75 Hawk (P-36) and Seversky P-35 which Swedes actually ordered. Usually neither FIAT G.50s nor Morane-Saulnier M.S. 406s which Finns received in 1940 from Italy and France were not mentioned in these plans.

Lysanders were also not delivered, but last delivered purchase was from Germany - 6 Hs 126 recce and light bomber planes, 5 of them were delivered. 1 was broken during delivery flight.

Finland received Westland Lysander mk. Is in 1940 and it is possible that these were the planes ordered by Estonia? What happened to Henschels later?

All infantry rifles were from WWI age. Also MG's. Most of ordinary artillery also. Fortifications on Eastern border were from earth and wood. Very few concrete bunkers. Plans of those fortifications were sold to Soviets by one Estonian officer. And Estonians knew it, because this traitor was caught and was in prison in Estonia.

Finns and Estonians changed their mixed weapons in the 1920's and 1930's with many countries. So, there were no new light infantry weapons in Estonian Army?

Finns met that same espionage problem. For example all plans of Mannerheim line were stolen. Also drawings of Finnish submarines, coastal armoured ships and m/31 Suomi SMG were stolen. It might be clear who needed all this information? The best known Soviet spy in Finland was Reserve Lieutenant Pentikäinen who worked in Ministry of Defence and has access to all secret stuff. He managed to escape to USSR in mid-1930's.

But we had quite a lot well trained men. Who had served in Estonian units and were ready to fight. But they didn't have the possibility to fight under Estonian flag. And they had to show their courage and training under other flags. And they did it.

For example in June 1944 in Karelian Isthmus in Finland Estonian I/JR 200 stopped Soviet armoured spearhead although they had only one loaned 75 mm PaK 40 AT gun. Battalion hold the line until it was ordered to leave its positions. Off topic I know.

One thing is not yet mentioned. Estonian radio intelligence had solved Soviet codes partly in the late 1930's. In co-operation with Finnish, Japanese and I think Polish intelligences most of these codes were solved before the Winter War. That helped Finns a lot during the war.

Lots of Estonian intelligence experts came to Finland in 1940 and 1941 and joined Finnish radio intelligence which had become even more efficient by 1941.

About those bad orders - in Estonia there is told that purchase of those 2 submarines ("Kalev" and "Lembit") in the beginning of 30's took away most of defence budget for several years. And because of it all other purchases were too late...

So, you also spent money for submarines... Strange coincidence, isnt it?

[nublu]

Hmm, Estonian "Air Force" was weaker than I remembered. How about in Latvia and Lithuania?

Air Forces of other Baltic states.

Strongest was Lithuanian Air Force. Lithuanians bought from France 14 Dewoitine D.501 fighters and from Great Britain 14 Gladiator Mk. I fighters. They had in use several Lithuanian built ANBO IV and 41 army cooperation and light bomber planes. Not very modern one's but still quite OK for this task. No bomber aircraft.

They also had plans to buy Morane-Saulnier MS.406 fighters from France and to build more advanced light bombers for their Air Force. But it was already too late for those plans.

Latvians also had Gloster Gladiator's. 26 planes. For army cooperation and recce they had quite obsolate SV-5 biplanes, built under licence in Latvia. They also had some Fairey Seal hydroplanes.

Finland received Westland Lysander mk. Is in 1940 and it is possible that these were the planes ordered by Estonia? What happened to Henschels later?

Don't know what happened to Estonian Lysenders. Spitfires were delivered to some RAF sqn (it was Sqn 604 for or 602, don't remember by heart).

By dates it's possible that those could be delivered to Finland. There was order to 10 planes. 2 should be delivered in November 1939 and eight in January 1940. Had Finnish planes Estonian signs and technical markings? I know that british pilots who received "Estonian" Spitfires were bit confused with Estonian markings in the cabin 8) Later those were changed.

Henschels were later used by 22nd Aviation Squadron (Aviation unit of 22nd Territorial Corps). They were based on Jägala aerodrome. As Soviets didn't trust Estonian pilots (and for reason) they planned to send all pilots to Russia in the beginning of the war. But most of the pilots escaped and hided in the forest until Germans came. Planes stood in the Jägala. At least one was used by Russian pilot for recce of advancing German units. Later they were destroyed on aerodrome.

Finns and Estonians changed their mixed weapons in the 1920's and 1930's with many countries. So, there were no new light infantry weapons in Estonian Army?

Yep, reason for Estonians to change weapons was that they were very different systems and used different kind of ammo. We had Russian 7,62 mm, German 7,92 (very few), British 7,7 mm, even Japanese 6,5 mm ammo weapons. Japanase were drilled to Russian 7,62 mm and given to use in Kaitseliit. German rifles were changed with Poles (if i remember correctly, or was it with Finns??). But there still were in use Russian 7,62 and british 7,7 rifles and MG's. Estonians tried to keep similar ammo in one unit, but couldn't to it so, because most of light MG's (Lewis and Madsen) were for british 7,7. Most of rifles for Russian 7,62 ammo.

As there was plenty of rifles, and quite reasonable ammount of MG's - there were no purchase attempts for infantry weapons. Estonia succesfully changed it's army pistols for new 9 mm FN Browning, and bought some Suomi submachine guns for border guard (old pistols and Tallinn submachine guns were sold to Spain during their Civil War).


One more topic what i haven't mentioned - armored units. Estonia had some Renault FT-18 tanks and couple of British Mk. V. Renault was purchased during the war of Independence but delivered after it. It was considered that it's enough for training of tank crews. New tanks would be bought during next war. But there were never any orders for new tanks.

Mk. V tanks were actually sent for Judenich, and Estonians received them after collapse of Judenich army. First idea was to use them as war memorials. Later they were also used in Estonian tank regiment, but were never concidered as real weapon.

Estonians had several armored trains. And they were concidered as backbone for army (after very succesful use of armored trains during the War of Independence), but actually their AA artillery was very week and their use would be problematic.

Estonia also had some Polish tankets and some armored cars (most of them constructed in Estonia), but they were concidered more like helping units.

Situation with other Baltic states armored units was quite similar.

rgrds

Toomas

[Mark V]

Interesting info guys.

Earlierly i stated that alliance between Finland and Baltic states would in my opinion have little effect without Swedish participation. Two reasons for that: 1) Sweden was militarily weak in late 30s - but it was an major industrial power that could supply some of the most critical pieces of armament for it's allies - world-class Bofors 37mm AT and 40mm AA-guns just as an example. 2) Sweden was clearly an country firmly in Western Europe - and even USSR would had hard time to invent any "reasoning" for aggression against it - Swedish participation would have given an alliance much more credibility.

But that is just speculation - as Sweden was not willing for such alliance (before it was clear that Stalin wiped his a** with any treaty he wanted, and before it was clear that alliance with nations between kingdom and USSR was maybe not an burden to Swedish defence - on the contrary), nor USSR would had allowed it either.

Little bit off-topic, i know.

Regards, Mark V

[Harri]

Little bit off-topic, i know.

Not at all. These things are good to keep "in marginal" all the time in this discussion.

Although Swedish Defence Forces were rather weak in 1939 their Navy was relatively strong and they could have arranged naval supply for the Balts. Sweden had submarines and also Junkers Ju 86 bombers (I don't remember how many at that stage, weren't they licence made in Sweden?) which would have been dangerous to Soviet vessels. USSR could not even stop Finnish convoys in 1939 and 1940.

You are right with the industrial capacity of Sweden. Additionally their relationships to Britain, USA, Switzerland and Germany as well would have perhaps meant more and better weapons. Larger alliance could have managed to buy more modern fighters like Hurricanes (I think Spitfires were out of question in 1939).

On the other hand alone Swedes managed to buy only FIAT CR.42s (they were meant for Swedish volunteers fighting in Finland) and Seversky P-35 fighters (which were too expensive for Finns). The 44 Brewster B-239 fighters were the best weapons Finland could get during Winter War. Italy could have probably also sell more than 35 FIAT G.50 fighters. Although Finns initially had problems with these they were our second best fighters after Brewsters in 1941. Their "biggest fault" was a very short range.

I think also Finland could have fought longer if Sweden, Britain and France would have more effectively supplied us. Our losses were much bigger because we didn't have enough ammunition for artillery and our AT and AA defence was too weak against thousands tanks. Finally the true reasons for signing the peace in March 1940 were the big losses which could not be replaced fast enough (lack of trained soldiers) and problems in logistics (lack of trucks for example).

OK. Back to the real situation. Finland and Baltic States would have also needed much more political support which they didn't get a lot. At least Balts were totally left alone. Perhaps the situation of Baltic states was similar to the situation of Finland in 1941 when we were alone between Germany and USSR?