Finnish anti aircraft defence question

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Swing
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 18:22
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#1

Post by Swing » 08 Mar 2014, 16:42

Hi everyone!
Could you please clear situation with Finnish anti aircraft defence manpower during Continuation war. Links and references are highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Northwind
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 19:33

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#2

Post by Northwind » 08 Mar 2014, 18:15

Hello! According to book written by Antti Juutilainen and Jari Leskinen: "Jatkosodan Pikkujättiläinen" the strength of AA-regiment 1 in Helsinki was 4500 in february 1944. Including Lottas(female on the service) and some younger boys as aid to the spotlight operators.
In february regiment had 12 heavy batterys (3 armed with 88mm RMB and artilleryradars) others had 75-76mm (Breda, Skoda, Bofors or SS with one having radar). There was also 21 40mm guns. Plus 3 H-batterys where also in training without own guns.


Mangrove
Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 02:33

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#3

Post by Mangrove » 08 Mar 2014, 19:03

30. PTk (Helsinki)
It.R 1 (Helsinki)

- 31 July 1941 = 1125 men and 47 lotta.
- 31 August 1941 = 939 men and 50 lotta.
- 30 September 1941 = 721 men and 46 lotta.
- 31 October 1941 = 713 men and 41 lotta.
- 30 November 1941 = 791 men and 42 lotta.
- 31 December 1941 = 691 men and 24 lotta.

- 31 January 1942 = 784 men and 22 lotta.
- 28 February 1942 = 1060 men and 33 lotta.
- 31 March 1942 = 1047 men and 29 lotta.
- 30 April 1942 = 1000 men and 24 lotta.
- 31 May 1942 = 1049 men and 24 lotta.
- 30 June 1942 = 1013 men and 22 lotta.
- 31 July 1942 = 1043 men and 23 lotta.
- 31 August 1942 = 1096 men and 7 lotta.
- 30 September 1942 = 1235 men and 7 lotta.
- 31 October 1942 = 1255 men and 8 lotta.
- 30 November 1942 = 1500 men and 8 lotta.
- 31 December 1942 = 1669 men and 26 lotta.

- 31 January 1943 = 1719 men and 29 lotta.
- 28 February 1943 = 2003 men and 31 lotta.
- 31 March 1943 = 2097 men and 36 lotta.
- 30 April 1943 = 2069 men and 38 lotta.
- 31 May 1943 = 1933 men and 39 lotta.
- 30 June 1943 = 1958 men and 45 lotta.
- 31 July 1943 = 1946 men and 46 lotta.
- 31 August 1943 = 1936 men and 39 lotta.
- 30 September 1943 = 1940 men and 34 lotta.
- 31 October 1943 = 1963 men and 39 lotta.
- 30 November 1943 = 2221 men and 42 lotta.
- 31 December 1943 = 2388 men and 41 lotta.

- 31 January 1944 = 2338 men and 31 lotta.
- 29 February 1944 = 2649 men and 34 lotta.
- 31 March 1944 = 2758 men and 39 lotta.
- 30 April 1944 = 2905 men and 41 lotta.
- 31 May 1944 = 3682 men and 45 lotta.
- 30 June 1944 = 3478 men and 20 lotta.
- 31 July 1944 = 3546 men and 20 lotta.
- 31 August 1944 = 3701 men and 18 lotta.
- 30 September 1944 = 3472 men and 20 lotta.

Mangrove
Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 02:33

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#4

Post by Mangrove » 08 Mar 2014, 23:45

It.R 2 (Kotka)

- 15 January 1944 = 1069 men and 37 lotta.
- 15 March 1944 = 1304 men and 40 lotta.
- 15 May 1944 = 1750 men and 44 lotta.
- 31 May 1944 = 1925 men and 46 lotta.
- 30 June 1944 = 1732 men and 53 lotta.
- 1 August 1944 = 2043 men and 54 lotta.
- 1 September 1944 = 2004 men and 60 lotta.
- 1 October 1944 = 1908 men and 58 lotta.

Swing
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 18:22
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#5

Post by Swing » 09 Mar 2014, 08:23

A lot of thanks! What about total strength of A-A forces (country and army) during Cuntinuation war? There ia a brilliant "Ilmapuolustus 1939-1940 (SPK 758)" about Winter war. Are there any similar materials from 1941-1944?

Mangrove
Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 02:33

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#6

Post by Mangrove » 09 Mar 2014, 11:39

Swing wrote:A lot of thanks! What about total strength of A-A forces (country and army) during Cuntinuation war?
The total strength of the Finnish Air Forces, comprised of the flying corps ("lentojoukot") and the anti-aircraft artillery ("ilmatorjunta") was as follows according to the Päämaja's statistics. Do notice that any anti-aircraft unit under the Finnish Navy has not been listed within the numbers:

26 July 1941 = 16457 men
1 December 1941 = 12129 men
1 June 1942 = 9076 men
1 December 1942 = 9492 men
1 June 1943 = 13439 men
1 December 1943 = 14485 men
1 June 1944 = 21459 men

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#7

Post by John Hilly » 09 Mar 2014, 18:18

Finnish AA had a lack of personnel after older men were released in 1942-43.
Lt Gen Lundqvist assured Marshal Mannerheim that scoolboys would fill up the ranks, but this didn't succeed too well.
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#8

Post by John Hilly » 09 Mar 2014, 18:33

On 11.7.1941:
Regional AAA-units had 62 gun units, 14 searchlight unit and 4 AA depot detachments.
Field Army had 72 gun units and 6 depots.

Unfortunately no mention about personnel strenghts.
Source: Pentti Palmu, Yön yli päivään, Suomen ilmatorjunnan vaiheita 1925 - 1990. Ilmatorjuntaupseeriyhdistys ry. Helsinki 1989.
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

Swing
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 18:22
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#9

Post by Swing » 10 Mar 2014, 19:55

Mangrove wrote:
The total strength of the Finnish Air Forces, comprised of the flying corps ("lentojoukot") and the anti-aircraft artillery ("ilmatorjunta") was as follows according to the Päämaja's statistics. Do notice that any anti-aircraft unit under the Finnish Navy has not been listed within the numbers:
Thanks. If I understand correctly, information about A-A units of Finnish Navy is in coastal artillery sources. Could you please estimate their strength?

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#10

Post by John Hilly » 10 Mar 2014, 21:03

Coastal Arty belonged to Naval Forces.
Navy had own organic AA-units both on ships and in fortresses. Their calibers varied from heavy to 7.62 mm.

Additional equipment reserved for the Navy in June 1941 was only one light battery and one AA-MG Company, which wasn't establised after all.
There were only three heavy cannons, 24 40 mm guns and 41 7.62 mm MGs reserved for the Naval Forces.

With best,
J-P :milwink:
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

Swing
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 18:22
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#11

Post by Swing » 11 Mar 2014, 20:35

John Hilly wrote: There were only three heavy cannons
That's interesting. Do you have any details about these guns?

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#12

Post by JTV » 11 Mar 2014, 22:26

John Hilly wrote:Coastal Arty belonged to Naval Forces.
Navy had own organic AA-units both on ships and in fortresses. Their calibers varied from heavy to 7.62 mm.

Additional equipment reserved for the Navy in June 1941 was only one light battery and one AA-MG Company, which wasn't establised after all.
There were only three heavy cannons, 24 40 mm guns and 41 7.62 mm MGs reserved for the Naval Forces.
That seems awfully small number compared to various 75-mm and 76-mm anti-aircraft guns issued to coastal artillery according various sources. I am really wondering what was considered as anti-aircraft gun when that list was written - apparently for example 18 x 75-mm Zenit-Meller (anti-aircraft gun version of 75/50 C Canet coastal gun) did not qualify. 24 x 75 ItK/97-14 P may have arrived just bit too late for that list. The number of anti-aircraft guns in use of coastal artillery must have grown in really substantial manner during Continuation war, with 20-mm Madsen being issued in large numbers and coastal artillery basically becoming the place where old 75-mm & 76-mm anti-aircraft guns were sent. Although it is quite likely that many of the coastal artillery batteries equipped with these old anti-aircraft guns may have lacked mechanical fire control computers needed for effectively shooting air targets.

Jarkko

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#13

Post by John Hilly » 12 Mar 2014, 19:54

My info was from the same Pentti Palmu's book.
This book shoud be the best source, unfortunately I don't have a copy:
Vehviläinen, Raimo, et al., Itsenäisen Suomen ilmatorjuntatykit 1917-2000. Kustantaja: Jyväskylä : Sotamuseo, 2005.
ISBN: 952-91-8449-2
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#14

Post by Tero » 17 Mar 2014, 08:37

IIRC during my service in the coastal artillery there was some talk about how the coastal artillery 152mm Canet (?) cannons were used to fire barrages against approaching high flying bomber formations, especially during the 1944 bombings. The fire was limited to airbursts at or near the apex of the trajectory at maximum elevation. Again, IIRC the aim was to brake up the formations rather than actually shoot any planes down.

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Finnish anti aircraft defence question

#15

Post by JTV » 17 Mar 2014, 19:52

Tero wrote:IIRC during my service in the coastal artillery there was some talk about how the coastal artillery 152mm Canet (?) cannons were used to fire barrages against approaching high flying bomber formations, especially during the 1944 bombings. The fire was limited to airbursts at or near the apex of the trajectory at maximum elevation. Again, IIRC the aim was to brake up the formations rather than actually shoot any planes down.
The matter has been discussed here earlier. Yes, 152-mm Canet (152/45 C) coastal guns were quite typically used against formations of bombers. Not all of these guns were suitable for this sort of use - the maximum elevation of these guns was originally quite limited. Hence their suitability for anti-aircraft use depended the type of gun mount (four main versions), if the guns had been inverted and how the guns had been installed (often they were installed on top of a concrete rise). The ammunition that they used against aircraft was high explosive shell equipped with time fuse and the method used for shooting air targets was so-called 3T-method. They were also used in this way since day 1 of Winter War, since the whole thing had been developed already long before World War 2.

More info: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/COASTAL_AR ... .htm#15245

When it comes to which of the guns used by costal artillery could have been considered as anti-aircraft guns 75/50 C Zenit-Meller and 152/45 C have one notable difference. Zenit-Meller version of 75/50 C had a gun mount designed for anti-aircraft use during World War 1. But all gun mount versions of 152/45 C had been designed for shooting surface targets and the work made to increase the maximum elevation that they allowed was focused in increasing maximum range of the gun against surface targets.

Jarkko

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”