The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1944

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Esa K
Member
Posts: 1257
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:49
Location: Sweden

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#31

Post by Esa K » 03 Nov 2010, 00:31

HI.

Art, sent you a PM about it earlier today, did you recive it? Or am I such an idiot that I cant send a PM anymore here?


Best regards

Esa K

User avatar
Panssari Salama
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:42

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#32

Post by Panssari Salama » 03 Nov 2010, 13:03

Art wrote:What are Tihonen's sources? Does he have a reference to Terekhov, 1965, or may be he provides a direct reference to TsAMO? If the latter is the case, what are the exact references?
Art, I borrowed Tiihonen's book from library and do not have it anymore. But as far as I can recall, I believe he mentioned his sources would be the archives of the said Red Army divisions. Ie, he was using original Russian sources.

Here's what I wrote earlier in this thread:

TIIHONEN: 'THE GREAT TANK BATTLE OF MUSTAMAKI' BW RED ARMY 286.D and 72.D UNITS, JUNE 15

- 286.D having made a succesfull break-through set up a hedgehod defense around Mustamäki

- IR 109 and 72.D reach Mustamäki and assume it is held by Finnish units
-- as their recon parties have reported so

- Decision to attack Mustamäki
-- 72.D and 351. Ass.Gn.Bn together with 31.TankRgt

- 4:30 Arty barrage to Mustamäki
-- Rifle Bns of 109 IR attack from northeast of Mustamäki, supported by elements of 185.TankRgt and 1222 Ass.Gn.Rgt
-- 31. TankRgt attacks from southeast to Mustamäki
-- 185.TankRgt attacks Mustamäki from NorthWest with 1222. AssGnBn (not incl. elements with 109IR)

- During the battle 286.D lost one infantry battalion and 6 tanks.
- 72.D with their support units lost 5 tanks

- Tiihonen
-- source: war diaries of said units, describing fights and losses at a time no Finnish units there
-- this confusion was reason why RA was not able to exploit their breach of VT Line to a maximum effect
-- as well why there was not that many tanks towards Liikola as they were all occupied in heavy fighting here


In other words, should it be possible for you to check the casualty reports of the units mentioned, on that area, on that particular date and time, we can then make our own conclusions.
Panssari Salama - Paying homage to Avalon Hill PanzerBlitz and Panzer Leader board games from those fab '70s.


Esa K
Member
Posts: 1257
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:49
Location: Sweden

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#33

Post by Esa K » 03 Nov 2010, 14:57

Hi
Art wrote:What are Tihonen's sources? Does he have a reference to Terekhov, 1965, or may be he provides a direct reference to TsAMO? If the latter is the case, what are the exact references?
Yes, Terekov is among the sources Tiihonen refeers to, but as PBlitz points out, he also have had acess to Soviet archval material, or at least scripts of it. Will check in Tiihonen utill friday or so and give his exact references to the Kuuterselkä chapter in his work.


Best regards

Esa K

User avatar
Panssari Salama
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:42

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#34

Post by Panssari Salama » 03 Nov 2010, 20:39

Thanks Esa. If I recall correctly, Kuuterselka was mentioned in several chapters, so one has to look around a bit to catch the two or three locations he discusses the events.

Rgrds Petri
Panssari Salama - Paying homage to Avalon Hill PanzerBlitz and Panzer Leader board games from those fab '70s.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#35

Post by Art » 05 Nov 2010, 16:59

Esa K wrote: Yes, Terekov is among the sources Tiihonen refeers to, but as PBlitz points out, he also have had acess to Soviet archval material, or at least scripts of it.
The book by Terekhov published in 1965 has an account on Mustamäki episode very similiar to the description from Tiihonen given above, except the friendly fire theory, of course. However, as far as I can see, Terekhov is not an ideal source and has some statements which I believe are erroneous. So an important question is what in the Tiihonen's account is taken from Terekhov and what from original documents. Precise references would be valuable here. As far as I can see from the files Esa sent to me, Tiihonen's desription of the "Mustamäki battle" is mostly based on Lappalainen, 1993 who in his turn gives a reference to Terekhov. Again references will be appreciated.
Can you see what casualties and battles are reported at Mustamäki on nighg of 14/15 june at Mustamäki? We can then draw our own conclusions.
I don't have enough information to have certain conclusions on the detailed course of events, so I refrain from comments in order not to create possible confusion. There are, however several things I'm quite sure in.

First, 31 Guards Tank Regiment and 1439 SP Regiment were not in the Kuuterselka sector by the morning of 14 June contrary to what Terekhov says. That can be seen from at least four different sources (attack order of the 108 Rifle Corps, attack order of the 109 Rifle Corps, war diary of the 108 Rifle Corps, daily report of the Staff of the Tank and Mechanized Forces of the 21 Army, 14 June). These two regiments supported 46 Rifle Division of the 108 Rifle Corps at Vammelsu, near the sea cost. During the day they were unabled to cross Vammeljoki River and were shifted to the north into the sector of the 109 Corps. I'm not sure when it happened exactly, but the mentioned report of 14 June says that they were still at Vammelsu by the evening of 14th. So mostl likely they could not take part in action in the region of interest before 15 June.

Then, as can be seen from the disposition I described above 72 Rifle Division was on the right wing of the 109 Corps, it was nowhere near Mustamaki. It took Kuuterselka (which was north-eastt of Mustamaki) on 14 June and I don't see how it was possible for this division to attack Mustamaki from the south-east (as Terekhov says) on 14 and 15 June. And Mustamaki was outside of the sector of attack of this division at all. Moreover, it was apparently busy with the Finnish counterattack in the night of 14/15 June, which made any incursions to Mustamaki were unlikely. Finnaly, the account of the action of this division I have (which is very brief, I must warn) doesn't say anything about Mustamaki. So I say with a very high probability that information on presence of elements of this division near Mustamaki is a mistake.

Third, 185 and 98 Tank Regiment were at Mustamaki by 19.00-19.30 14 June according to the mentioned report of the Staff of Tank Forces. Mobile group was in the same region as well. It doesn't seem likely that they would attack this village, which was allready taken by them, again on 15 June. Unfortunately, I don't have the report of 15 June, so I can't say for sure what the 185 Tank Regiment did on 15 June. According to the brief report on operations of the 109 Rifle Division the regiment on this day was in action near Kuuterselka together with 381 and 602 Rifle Regiments/109 Division, apparently against the Finnish Jaeger Brigade. Any actions at Mustamaki are not mentioned. So, I believe 185 Tank Regiment attacking Mustamaki on 15 June is a mistake.

In general, I find it very probable that Terekhov confused something, althoug one cannot make definite conclusions without documents. It seems that Tiihoneen mostly repeats Terekhov's account, but and additional study of his sources is needed.

I can't say what were precise losses of tanks on particular day. By the end of the 14 June, 98 Tank Regiment had 16 operational T-34s, 185 Tank Regiment - 12 T-34, 1222 SP Regiment - 19 SU-76. I don't have the same type of info for 15 June.

farmer
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Nov 2016, 09:36
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1

#36

Post by farmer » 09 Mar 2017, 13:03

Art wrote:
Esa K wrote: Yes, Terekov is among the sources Tiihonen refeers to, but as PBlitz points out, he also have had acess to Soviet archval material, or at least scripts of it.
The book by Terekhov published in 1965 has an account on Mustamäki episode very similiar to the description from Tiihonen given above, except the friendly fire theory, of course. However, as far as I can see, Terekhov is not an ideal source and has some statements which I believe are erroneous. So an important question is what in the Tiihonen's account is taken from Terekhov and what from original documents. Precise references would be valuable here. As far as I can see from the files Esa sent to me, Tiihonen's desription of the "Mustamäki battle" is mostly based on Lappalainen, 1993 who in his turn gives a reference to Terekhov. Again references will be appreciated.
Can you see what casualties and battles are reported at Mustamäki on nighg of 14/15 june at Mustamäki? We can then draw our own conclusions.
I don't have enough information to have certain conclusions on the detailed course of events, so I refrain from comments in order not to create possible confusion. There are, however several things I'm quite sure in.

First, 31 Guards Tank Regiment and 1439 SP Regiment were not in the Kuuterselka sector by the morning of 14 June contrary to what Terekhov says. That can be seen from at least four different sources (attack order of the 108 Rifle Corps, attack order of the 109 Rifle Corps, war diary of the 108 Rifle Corps, daily report of the Staff of the Tank and Mechanized Forces of the 21 Army, 14 June). These two regiments supported 46 Rifle Division of the 108 Rifle Corps at Vammelsu, near the sea cost. During the day they were unabled to cross Vammeljoki River and were shifted to the north into the sector of the 109 Corps. I'm not sure when it happened exactly, but the mentioned report of 14 June says that they were still at Vammelsu by the evening of 14th. So mostl likely they could not take part in action in the region of interest before 15 June.

Then, as can be seen from the disposition I described above 72 Rifle Division was on the right wing of the 109 Corps, it was nowhere near Mustamaki. It took Kuuterselka (which was north-eastt of Mustamaki) on 14 June and I don't see how it was possible for this division to attack Mustamaki from the south-east (as Terekhov says) on 14 and 15 June. And Mustamaki was outside of the sector of attack of this division at all. Moreover, it was apparently busy with the Finnish counterattack in the night of 14/15 June, which made any incursions to Mustamaki were unlikely. Finnaly, the account of the action of this division I have (which is very brief, I must warn) doesn't say anything about Mustamaki. So I say with a very high probability that information on presence of elements of this division near Mustamaki is a mistake.

Third, 185 and 98 Tank Regiment were at Mustamaki by 19.00-19.30 14 June according to the mentioned report of the Staff of Tank Forces. Mobile group was in the same region as well. It doesn't seem likely that they would attack this village, which was allready taken by them, again on 15 June. Unfortunately, I don't have the report of 15 June, so I can't say for sure what the 185 Tank Regiment did on 15 June. According to the brief report on operations of the 109 Rifle Division the regiment on this day was in action near Kuuterselka together with 381 and 602 Rifle Regiments/109 Division, apparently against the Finnish Jaeger Brigade. Any actions at Mustamaki are not mentioned. So, I believe 185 Tank Regiment attacking Mustamaki on 15 June is a mistake.

In general, I find it very probable that Terekhov confused something, althoug one cannot make definite conclusions without documents. It seems that Tiihoneen mostly repeats Terekhov's account, but and additional study of his sources is needed.

I can't say what were precise losses of tanks on particular day. By the end of the 14 June, 98 Tank Regiment had 16 operational T-34s, 185 Tank Regiment - 12 T-34, 1222 SP Regiment - 19 SU-76. I don't have the same type of info for 15 June.
Hello guys!

Time passes away, but "Mustamäki battle" is still a big mistery. Unfortunately documents, published on "Pamyat naroda", don't help to clarify it. There are only few things more I could find concerning that:
- On 14.06 at 19.00 31 SGHTR has got an order to move to Raivola from Vanhasaha and probably it enterd Kuuterselkä about midnight (based on the regiment report) at the same time of finnish couterattack. Also I may guess 1439 SPAR (351 GHSPAR) did the same.
- 1 platoon of 98 STR from Mustamäki and 1 company of 27 SGHTR from Vammeljärvi were sent there too at night.

Does anybody know something else new about soviet tank regiments actions (saw documents of 185, 98, 27 tank regiments for example) in that operation?
Was a friendly fire between soviet formations possible then?
I see 3 time windows for that:
- 13.00 - 16.00 (MSK) 14.6 (98 STR and 996 IR vs 456 IR) at Mustamäki
- 18.00 (MSK) 14.6 (Mobile group vs 98 STR and 996 ITR) at Mustamäki
- after midnight 14-15.6 south-west of Kuuterselkä

BR

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1944

#37

Post by Art » 09 Mar 2017, 15:06

I guess, everything is simple as two bytes. Mustamaki was taken in the second half of 14.6.44, no other actions happened there after that. In the Terekhov's account one should simply substitute "Mustamaki" with "Kuuterselka", in that case it starts to make some sense.

farmer
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Nov 2016, 09:36
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

Re: The rough timeline of events in Kuuterselka, 14.-15.6. 1944

#38

Post by farmer » 09 Mar 2017, 16:04

Dear Art!
I've sent you a private message. Please read.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”