War of 1939-40 in summer time?
War of 1939-40 in summer time?
I have for long wondered in what respects the winter conditions aided and in what respects hindered each side during the Winter War. Obviously, the coldness affected combatants on both sides, but more so the Soviets who were worse prepared and, for the southerners, accustomed to the harsh winter. A man working outside in the heart of winter needs more food and rest to remain fully operative, and more time had to be spent just to keep the troops warm. If this could not be done, men would lose their health and that way become less capable fighters. The defenders had also tried to take care that all houses were burned down before withdrawal, so that the attackers would have to sleep outside. All the snow also slowed down Soviet infantry who usually didn't know how to ski.
On the other hand, when swamps, lakes and rivers froze, it usually was to the attacker's benefit. Roads also remained hard. OTOH marine operations, like invasions along the coast of Ladoga, had to be forgotten.
Darkness should be of more help to a well-organized defender.
What do you think? Would Red Army, as it was in November of 1939, fared any better in your opinion if it could have attacked in summer (or autumn, spring) conditions?
On the other hand, when swamps, lakes and rivers froze, it usually was to the attacker's benefit. Roads also remained hard. OTOH marine operations, like invasions along the coast of Ladoga, had to be forgotten.
Darkness should be of more help to a well-organized defender.
What do you think? Would Red Army, as it was in November of 1939, fared any better in your opinion if it could have attacked in summer (or autumn, spring) conditions?
- Christian W.
- Member
- Posts: 2494
- Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
- Location: Vantaa, Finland
- Christian W.
- Member
- Posts: 2494
- Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
- Location: Vantaa, Finland
Of course they would have faced problems with their AFVs and other vehicles even on summer, however, they had bigger problems in winter. AFVs and other vehicles might get frozen, soldiers might freeze to death ( Like I said, most of the troops were from warmer Soviet regions, Ukraine ect: and winters in Ukraine arent as cold as ones in Finland ) and these are yust few examples.
I like remember reading some Russian book about Talvisota. And there was told, that Russians specially choosed the beginning of the war in late November. As usually there were quite harsh cold in the end of the November, and swamps and rivers and lakes will be already frozen. But not yet much snow.
But it happened so, on 1939, that there was quite early snow, and not much cold. So, swamps were not frozen, but covered with snow. And it made movement of tanks very difficult. And when later in December and January came realy harsh cold - snow was already so thick that swamps still didn't frozen properly.
I haven't seen any real weather forecast and stats for Isthmus, but sounds like reasonable
rgrds
Toomas
But it happened so, on 1939, that there was quite early snow, and not much cold. So, swamps were not frozen, but covered with snow. And it made movement of tanks very difficult. And when later in December and January came realy harsh cold - snow was already so thick that swamps still didn't frozen properly.
I haven't seen any real weather forecast and stats for Isthmus, but sounds like reasonable
rgrds
Toomas
And especially to north of the Isthmus, where troop densities were lower and road network was poor, snow meant that Finnish troops had an advantage in mobility over the Russians who were more road bound and didn't have skis.
How common was it actually to freeze to death in the Red Army? In surrounded units, with no food, I would bet it was more likely, but what about in the Karelian Isthmus where troops were supplied? Also, does anyone have any statistics about frozen limbs, from either side?
How common was it actually to freeze to death in the Red Army? In surrounded units, with no food, I would bet it was more likely, but what about in the Karelian Isthmus where troops were supplied? Also, does anyone have any statistics about frozen limbs, from either side?
- Christian W.
- Member
- Posts: 2494
- Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
- Location: Vantaa, Finland
Freezing to death. It did happen, with surrounded units it was common but it also happened with units that were supplied.
Why did it happen? Because the Red troops were ill-prepared for winter warfare, both tactically and physically. Majority of the troops were from warmer regions like Ukraine, not to mention that they were decapitated, thanks to the 1937 military purge.
Why did it happen? Because the Red troops were ill-prepared for winter warfare, both tactically and physically. Majority of the troops were from warmer regions like Ukraine, not to mention that they were decapitated, thanks to the 1937 military purge.
The war in spring or summer conditions would had been much more difficult for RKKA. Melted marshes and lakes would be serious obstacles for tanks and artillery movements. Without ice on Viipuri bay the Red Army would have much more problems there. The supply of the troops will be constrained by muddy roads. And, last but not least – forests on summer provide very significant advantage to defending side compared to winter. Soviets would have a lot of problems such as limited visibility, ambushes, poor reconnaissance.
It’s no wonder that the USSR agreed on peace with such “modest” demands. Though the Mannerheim line was taken over and Finnish army exhausted and their resources virtually ended the Soviet Union didn’t dare to continue fighting through spring.
It’s no wonder that the USSR agreed on peace with such “modest” demands. Though the Mannerheim line was taken over and Finnish army exhausted and their resources virtually ended the Soviet Union didn’t dare to continue fighting through spring.
Here is an excellent site about the Winter War and specifically the weather stats:nublu wrote: I haven't seen any real weather forecast and stats for Isthmus, but sounds like reasonable
http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm
Yes, but I was asking how often, how much, did it happen. Is there any accurate information about this? Did half of the Russians in Raate road die of coldness? 10%? 75%? Did as many die of coldness in the Isthmus? And what about the amount of non-life threatening frostbites?Christian W. wrote:Freezing to death. It did happen, with surrounded units it was common but it also happened with units that were supplied.
Why did it happen? Because the Red troops were ill-prepared for winter warfare, both tactically and physically. Majority of the troops were from warmer regions like Ukraine, not to mention that they were decapitated, thanks to the 1937 military purge.
I think it had more to do with the acknowledgement that the war had already been going on for way too long with costs way too high (compare that to the seizing of eastern Poland), and with the fear of an Allied intervention.Grad wrote:It’s no wonder that the USSR agreed on peace with such “modest” demands. Though the Mannerheim line was taken over and Finnish army exhausted and their resources virtually ended the Soviet Union didn’t dare to continue fighting through spring.
Frozen Bay of Viipuri indeed presented a huge threat to Finnish forces when Soviets started outflanking Viipuri by moving troops over the thick ice.Grad wrote:The war in spring or summer conditions would had been much more difficult for RKKA. Melted marshes and lakes would be serious obstacles for tanks and artillery movements. Without ice on Viipuri bay the Red Army would have much more problems there. The supply of the troops will be constrained by muddy roads. And, last but not least – forests on summer provide very significant advantage to defending side compared to winter. Soviets would have a lot of problems such as limited visibility, ambushes, poor reconnaissance.
Mud wouldn't have been a problem, after the normal mud season, unless very poor weather prevailed. It wasn't a problem during the summer of 1944, at least.
I don't quite undestand what significant advantage forests would have provided during summer when compared to winter...Could you elaborate? Anyway, visibility is much better during summer, naturally. At these latitudes there's only a few daylight hours during mid-winter, but no darkness during midsummer nights.
Thnx, it is excellent site.Earldor wrote:Here is an excellent site about the Winter War and specifically the weather stats:
http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm
To check this theory i am still missing one part. Is there anywhere available such stats what was the average weather for late November-December in Isthmus in 30ties.
Have someone seen such information somewhere?
grad
Forests gives strong advantage to defending side and on summer these advantages are enhanced.
First, forest is excellent place for kind of semi-partisan hit-and-run tactics. Off course, Finish army was regular army with corresponding tactics but ambushes and sudden attack by small groups fared well for them. Such tactics are recognised by regular armies and recommended by rules of engagement.
Second, it is very easy to get desoriented in summer in forests. Again, defending side has advantages here due to superior knowledge of the terrain, more contemporaneous topographic maps, aid of local inhabitants.
Third, reconaissance is more difficult in summer forests, and it is more important for offensive side too. Lack of adequate reconaissance was one of the reasons of catastrophic Soviet losses during the war.
Forth, artillery's efficiency is limited as far as direct visibility targets are concerned . You know it's role was high in RKKA.
Fifth, the combat is summer is much closer due to again aforementioned limited visibility so anti-tank warfare is more effective.
And so on, and so on..
First, forest is excellent place for kind of semi-partisan hit-and-run tactics. Off course, Finish army was regular army with corresponding tactics but ambushes and sudden attack by small groups fared well for them. Such tactics are recognised by regular armies and recommended by rules of engagement.
Second, it is very easy to get desoriented in summer in forests. Again, defending side has advantages here due to superior knowledge of the terrain, more contemporaneous topographic maps, aid of local inhabitants.
Third, reconaissance is more difficult in summer forests, and it is more important for offensive side too. Lack of adequate reconaissance was one of the reasons of catastrophic Soviet losses during the war.
Forth, artillery's efficiency is limited as far as direct visibility targets are concerned . You know it's role was high in RKKA.
Fifth, the combat is summer is much closer due to again aforementioned limited visibility so anti-tank warfare is more effective.
And so on, and so on..
Thats funny,
Personally i think that had the "Winter war" been fought in summer, the Finland would have been a Soviet Republic in no time..
And what comes to the swamps and tanks.. well.. JSU-152 could pass a swamp.. so what about the lighter vehicles?
And also during a summer there would be no snow on the roads so the soviet tanks could just "blitz em"...
The snow saved us, the snow slowed the Soviets to snails pace..
But once supplied with good enough quality and number of weapons, we did prove that we could do same kind of miracle in summer too (1944) but against the kind of enemy and kind of and number of weapons we had in 1939.. no way..
Personally i think that had the "Winter war" been fought in summer, the Finland would have been a Soviet Republic in no time..
And what comes to the swamps and tanks.. well.. JSU-152 could pass a swamp.. so what about the lighter vehicles?
And also during a summer there would be no snow on the roads so the soviet tanks could just "blitz em"...
The snow saved us, the snow slowed the Soviets to snails pace..
But once supplied with good enough quality and number of weapons, we did prove that we could do same kind of miracle in summer too (1944) but against the kind of enemy and kind of and number of weapons we had in 1939.. no way..