Digitized National Defence University publications & theses

[Mangrove]

https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/72633

National Defence University Institutional Repository contains NDU publications and unclassified theses. Repository is also used to store digitized cultural materials.

National Defence University Library deposits the publications in the repository on behalf of the authors. For more information, see the library web page at http://www.mppk.fi/kirjasto.

- Suomalainen sotilaskäsikirja. 1. osa.
- Suomalainen sotilaskäsikirja. 2. osa.

- Rannikkopuolustuksen aluekysymykset autonomisessa ja itsenäisessä Suomessa - Ove Engvist
- Ensimmäisen maailmansodan aikainen linnoitusjärjestelmä Etelä-Karjalassa - Marko Kaisto
- Ahvenanmaan strateginen merkitys - Simo Källman
- IV Armeijakunnan ilmatorjunnan järjestelyt vetäytymisvaiheen taisteluissa 1944 - Marko Lamppu
- Ilmatoiminnan johtaminen Karjalan kannaksen torjuntataisteluissa kesällä 1944 - Tuomas Markkinen

- Sorokka-suunnitelma : tiedustelutietojen merkitys operaation valmistelussa tammi-maaliskussa 1942 - Tuomas Mustonen
- Prikaatien käyttö kesän 1944 taisteluissa - Antti Nissinen
- Tykistön tulenkäytön kehittyminen VI Armeijakunnan taisteluissa jatkosodan hyökkäysvaiheessa 1941 - Riku Rautiainen
- Merivartiolaitoksen asema maanpuolustuksessa 1930 - 1939 - Jari Rautiokoski
- Viestitoiminta Viipurinlahden ylimenohyökkäyksessä 1941 - Anne Reijo

- Siilasvuon joukkojen huollon järjestelyt Suomussalmella 1939-1940 - Juha Saarimaa
- Henkilötappioiden täydentäminen talvi- ja jatkosodassa - Tomi Saikkonen
- Viipurinlahden taistelu 1944 joint-operaation näkökulmasta tarkasteltuna - Juho Talvitie
- Suomalainen iskuosastotoiminta Karjalan kannaksella jatkosodassa - Niko Toivonen
- Suojeluskuntatykistö Suomessa - Mikko Voutiainen

[Slon-76]

https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/72633
National Defence University Institutional Repository contains NDU publications and unclassified theses. Repository is also used to store digitized cultural materials.

- Siilasvuon joukkojen huollon järjestelyt Suomussalmella 1939-1940 - Juha Saarimaa

You is very evil man, by Martti! Now for me it is necessary to spend week or two for the translate. This is terrible!

If to be serious, then the many thanks. I think this will be very interestingly. One moment only astonished me.

Suomussalmella Siilasvuo taisteli kahta puna-armeijan divisioonaa vastaan. Vihollisen divisioonat saatiin tuhottua miltei kokonaan.

I did not can to assume that Finnish historians in 2011 can continue to think that both Soviet divisions were "almost destroyed".

[Vaeltaja]

If to be serious, then the many thanks. I think this will be very interestingly. One moment only astonished me.

Suomussalmella Siilasvuo taisteli kahta puna-armeijan divisioonaa vastaan. Vihollisen divisioonat saatiin tuhottua miltei kokonaan.

I did not can to assume that Finnish historians in 2011 can continue to think that both Soviet divisions were "almost destroyed".

How else would you put it? Neither of the Soviet divisions had any resemblance of unit cohesion or integrity left and had suffered up to 50% losses. As fighting formation they were destroyed.

[Slon-76]

How else would you put it? Neither of the Soviet divisions had any resemblance of unit cohesion or integrity left and had suffered up to 50% losses. As fighting formation they were destroyed.

163 division lost 3,5-4000 people (from 12500). It went away from Suomussalmi in the complete order. Why it " is almost completely destroyed"? Is destroyed only one regiment of division.
44 Division suffered severe defeat, but destroyed it was only in August 1941 by Germans. Losses I December January 1940 composed on the quite maximum calculations 5300-5500 people (of 17000). Division preserved all control elements. Heavy defeat - yes, it is destroyed is not.
Only division, destroyed by Finns in 1939-1940, this the 18th.

[St.George]

How else would you put it? Neither of the Soviet divisions had any resemblance of unit cohesion or integrity left and had suffered up to 50% losses. As fighting formation they were destroyed.

163 division lost 3,5-4000 people (from 12500). It went away from Suomussalmi in the complete order. Why it " is almost completely destroyed"? Is destroyed only one regiment of division.

Hmm, complete order you say, leaving behind over 1000 horses, 70 guns, 43 tanks, 250 trucks, 29 AT-guns, 26 field kitchen and over 800 000 rounds of 7,62mm!

Where they in hurry?

[Slon-76]

Hmm, complete order you say, leaving behind over 1000 horses, 70 guns, 43 tanks, 250 trucks, 29 AT-guns, 26 field kitchen and over 800 000 rounds of 7,62mm!
Where they in hurry?

163 divisions never did not have 43 tanks. You confuse 44 and 163 divisions. AT-guns, by the way, generally not whom had.
More attentively read.
" "

[St.George]

Hmm, complete order you say, leaving behind over 1000 horses, 70 guns, 43 tanks, 250 trucks, 29 AT-guns, 26 field kitchen and over 800 000 rounds of 7,62mm!
Where they in hurry?

163 divisions never did not have 43 tanks. You confuse 44 and 163 divisions.
More attentively read.
" "

222nd Tank Battalion as all Soviet Rifle division had a tank battalion attached to them. :roll:

[Slon-76]

222nd Tank Battalion as all Soviet Rifle division had a tank battalion attached to them. :roll:

Did not have 163 divisions of tank battalion. In RKKA at that time there were not at all 222 tank battalions. In 163 divisions were the company of tanks T -37 (14 pieces) 177 reconnaissance battalions.
Obviously you bear in mind the 22nd battalion of the protection of the staff of the 9th army, in composition of which it was 6 T-26.

[St.George]

222nd Tank Battalion as all Soviet Rifle division had a tank battalion attached to them. :roll:

Did not have 163 divisions of tank battalion. In RKKA at that time there were not at all 222 tank battalions. In 163 divisions were the company of tanks T -37 (14 pieces) 177 reconnaissance battalions.
Obviously you bear in mind the 22nd battalion of the protection of the staff of the 9th army, in composition of which it was 6 T-26.

Posted by Art
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=142641

Northern Finland/Lapland
9th Army:

Initially had 177 Separate Recon Battlion/122 Rifle Division (17 T-37, 2 armored cars) and the separate recon battalion of the 163 Rifle Division (12 T-37, 2 T-38, 3 D-8, 2 BA-27). Between 5 and 27 December the following units arrived: 79, 97, 100, 302, 365 Separate Tank Battalions, and 312th Tank and 4th Recon battalions of the 44th Rifle Division

There where a lot of tank battalions supporting the 163rd and 44th Division.

And the main issue if 163rd Division was so successfully as you say why did they even withdraw?
And not kept on moving for victory for Stalin?

[Slon-76]

Posted by Art
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=142641

But where 222 battalion?

There where a lot of tank battalions supporting the 163rd and 44th Division.

Only 312 battalion of 44 division and 177 SRB. 79 and 365 tank battalions actually operated together with 163 divisions. But to the front they arrived at the very end of December and in Suomussalmi they were not. That such 302 battalion I do not know (it no in the enumeration of the parts, which participated in the winter war), but it did not war with 163 divisions.

And the main issue if 163rd Division was so successfully as you say why did they even withdraw?
And not kept on moving for victory for Stalin?

[/quote]

I do not understand, in what the sense of your question? What successfully? I said that 163 divisions went away from Suomussalmi in the complete order. Not more. Or you do consider that loss by 25% of personnel - this is great success?

[Mangrove]

Also some old Sotahistoriallinen Aikakauskirja military history magazine volumes have been digitized. Short English summaries can be found from the end of the articles.
http://www.sshs.fi/aikakauskirja/aikaka ... igitoidut/

[Seppo Jyrkinen]

What an expression "destroyed unit" means?

In normal everyday language you could think 80%...100% of manpower or something.

In military language is quite different. I remember to seen a definition, which says that an unit is destroyed if it loses 20% (someone who know this for certain, could confirm/deny this) of human forces on a short period of time. Idea is, that the unit commander can't be sure that he's unit is able function like it should. To be sure, you have to take the unit off combat, check it it needs reinforcement etc.

[Hanski]

Thank you very much, Martti, for sharing with us this link on Sotahistoriallinen Aikakauskirja!

http://www.sshs.fi/aikakauskirja/aikaka ... igitoidut/

I would like to recommend checking this link with its .pdf files to all those willing to read articles on Finnish military history (of all historical eras, not just WWII) in English on a high academic level. Like Martti already mentioned, the indexes of the contents are translated into English in the later editions, and all of them have illustration and photo captions in English, and best of all, after the reference list at the end of each article, there is a summary in English. The topics are relevant and interesting to AHF readers, so please have a look!

Cheers,
Hanski

[Mangrove]

- Rannikkoiskujoukkojen koulutus 1940-1941 : rannikkoiskujoukkojen kehitys talvisodan sotakokemusten perusteella Hangon alueella maaliskuusta 1940 - joulukuuhun 1941

- The quest for manoeuvre : the English manoeuvre warfare theories and British military thought 1920-1991

[Karelia]

What an expression "destroyed unit" means?

In normal everyday language you could think 80%...100% of manpower or something.

In military language is quite different. I remember to seen a definition, which says that an unit is destroyed if it loses 20% (someone who know this for certain, could confirm/deny this) of human forces on a short period of time. Idea is, that the unit commander can't be sure that he's unit is able function like it should. To be sure, you have to take the unit off combat, check it it needs reinforcement etc.

Found this kind of definition for the term "destroy":

"Destroy is a tactical mission task that physically renders an enemy force combat-ineffective until it is reconstituted. Alternatively, to destroy a combat system is to damage it so badly that it cannot perform any function or be restored to a usable condition without being entirely rebuilt."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... htm#par2-5

According to this definition (and IIRC also acc. to the definition of the Finnish army) the soviet 163rd and 44th divisions at Suomussalmi were destroyed.