Harri wrote:Could these "lessons" also be achieved?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Only Germans had good enough radios at the beginning of WW II needed by fast responding field artillery.
Parham's concentration on the German armour in the forest during May 1940 suggests otherwise. Granted, though, that was an exceptional event for the RA in that campaign. Then again, it was an exceptional event for
any army at that point in time.
Also, the Germans aren't the Finns, so I'm not quite sure how this supports your POV?
Theoretical background was perhaps known but was it realized?
Yes, although massive early war expansion and dodgy overal doctrine screwed things up a bit initially.
As far as I know US Army was not especially modern in the 1930's.
You know that bit, where I said "The first half of the war for both [the US and the UK] was abysmal", what do you think that meant?
Did anyone else than Finns use radiosondes (since 1942) during the WW II?
The British generally did not (although they DID use them, and with increasing frequency in 1944, incl tracking of the ballon by radar rather than theo), but who cares? The Finns perhaps used sondes more than anyone, but everyone used met corrections. The sondes were better than other methods. Bully for you. It does nothing to alter the overall conclusion.
If you fight against the superiority (of 10x or 100x) you just have to do something to protect yourself or to be better.
Sure. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
We had only 412 field guns and 73 guns without a recoil system issued to units. Additionally there was a severe lack of ammunition (especially those badly needed). During the Winter War Finns didn't have long-range artillery and really few heavy artillery pieces (only 11% of all, none modern). By 1941 the portion of heavy artillery was already 29% although the number of field artillery units had nearly doubled. In 1944 the portion of heavy artillery pieces was already 44%.
So? Everyone's gun park grew during the war. Again, this is an example of special pleading, and an internal focus vs external.
EDIT:
Did Americans use just-in-time (all weapons fire same target and the whole concentration arrives at the same moment) and joint-fire (combined timed artillery and bomber attacks) concentrations? Finns did both in 1944.
TOT (Time On Target)? Yeah, sure. So did the Brits. Since WWI. During WWII the Brits moved
away from TOT since it wasted too much time. The same effect coul be acheived in much less time using British methods.
Did the Western Allies co-ordinate with a/c? Are you kidding? Of course they did, again since WWI. Things took a mighty step backwards between the wars while the RAF concentrated on strategic bombing, but came back on track during 1943.
Not Soviets, not Germans, not Italians, who "everyone"? Why didn't they adopt these techniques if everyone knew them so well? Soviet artillery adopted Finnish style firing technique as late as in the 1970's. And you said it was practiced since WW I by everyone?
Everyone that mattered. UK (and CW), France, Germany. US to a lesser extent.
C'mon Harri, this is basic stuff. If you don't know this already, you shouldn't be trumpeting so loudly.