Harri, please stop with the strawmen.
First you argued that the Finnish artillery was the "best in Europe" when the question originally wasn't qualified to "Europe". Then you decided to make your argument that the Finns had unique capabilities, after JonS said that they were not. Now you evidently have decided to recast the argument as "who was first to do what"?
Harri wrote:In Finland artillery battalion had become the basic unit of fire already in 1925.
So what? Your original claim implied that nobody else did so in World War II.
The first manual "Fire observing direction for a battery" was written by Col. Nenonen in February 1920. It introduced our first true military secret: "Fire observing card". It was based on the experiences of WW I (Nenonen was a former Russian Imperial Army artillery Lt.Col.). The next manual "Firing regulations for the field artillery" was introduced in 1924. Basically these were used until 1943 when the new manual was introduced.
So what? Your originally inference was that no one other than the Finns were clever enough to do so. Graphical firing tables, range fans and other such devices were experimented with, developed, and available well before the US entry into the war as well. The US Army Field Artillery Manuals were also updated regularly during the 1920s, in 1938, 1940, 1942, 1944, and 1945. Are you now trying to see who revised their manuals the most?
Our latest system is fully computerized (introduced in 1987 by Nokia, improved combined model also for mortar units introduced in 1997) but basically based on Nenonen's farsighted "theories" and principles. Old methods still remain as back-up in Finland too ("in case of no electricity"), even the old theodolites (the tables have been replaced with pocket computers or lap-tops).
Yep, most people maintain backups...how that relates to World War II is a bit beyond me though?
The major problems before Winter War was although the lack of light radios (a rather good artillery radio was designed already in 1925 but the numbers remained low due to a following recession) and the numerous gun models within battalions: in 1939 a typical artillery battalion had two light 76 mm cannon (two different models) and one light 122 mm howitzer (two different models) battery.
The US Army Ordnance manufactured
no new field artillery pieces between 1921 and September 1940 except a few prototype M1926 (M1) 105mm howitzers that were never put into production and various other prototypes. Everything else was remanufacturing of pieces built prior to 1921.
Although what the point of such competition is on your part I don't know? Are you trying to show who was the poorest? What does that have to do with capabilities during World War II?
BTW, most fire orders were transmitted by landline for security and clarity, radios generally were a backup or were critical for highly mobile operations.
The work for modernizing Finnish field artillery had started already in the 1920's but it took until mid 1930's when a 105 mm Bofors howitzer (105 H/37) was selected for our basic artillery piece to replace ancient 76 mm cannons. The licence production was delayed due to a war (and a huge war booty which was first repaired) and did not start earlier than in 1942 but continued until 1944 (total production 130 pcs) and a major part of this batch went to the separate light artillery battalions which moved their older 105 mm or 122 mm weapons to divisional artillery battalions and 75/76 mm guns to the depots or coastal artillery to replace even older weapons.
Wow, they were in pretty good shape compared to the US Army in the 1930s. :roll:
How else was accurate true (rather than relative) windspeed to be calculated? I suppose Finns did it with theodolites (that were the "leading ones in the world" too)? :roll: 
