War of 1939-40 in summer time?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

War of 1939-40 in summer time?

#1

Post by Jari » 10 Nov 2004, 21:02

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?

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#2

Post by Christian W. » 11 Nov 2004, 11:50

Of course they would have. Most of the Soviet troops were actually from warmer regions like Ukraine.


User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#3

Post by Jari » 11 Nov 2004, 15:03

What about the problems posed to tanks by the marshes and lakes and rivers? And wouldn't Vuoksi and Bay of Viipuri have been far harder for Soviets to cross, letting Finns better concentrate on the usable routes?

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#4

Post by Christian W. » 11 Nov 2004, 15:27

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.

User avatar
nublu
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 12:03
Location: Estonia
Contact:

#5

Post by nublu » 11 Nov 2004, 16:04

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 :wink:

rgrds

Toomas

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#6

Post by Jari » 11 Nov 2004, 16:11

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?

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#7

Post by Christian W. » 11 Nov 2004, 19:56

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.

User avatar
Grad
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 11:37
Location: Russia

#8

Post by Grad » 11 Nov 2004, 20:14

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.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: 27 Mar 2003, 01:35
Location: Finland

#9

Post by Earldor » 11 Nov 2004, 21:14

nublu wrote: I haven't seen any real weather forecast and stats for Isthmus, but sounds like reasonable :wink:
Here is an excellent site about the Winter War and specifically the weather stats:

http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#10

Post by Jari » 11 Nov 2004, 21:51

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.
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?

User avatar
Jari
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 12:32
Location: Finland

#11

Post by Jari » 11 Nov 2004, 22:04

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.
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.

User avatar
Keke
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Oct 2004, 03:29
Location: Finland

#12

Post by Keke » 11 Nov 2004, 22:47

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.
Frozen Bay of Viipuri indeed presented a huge threat to Finnish forces when Soviets started outflanking Viipuri by moving troops over the thick ice.

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.

User avatar
nublu
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 12:03
Location: Estonia
Contact:

#13

Post by nublu » 11 Nov 2004, 23:04

Earldor wrote:Here is an excellent site about the Winter War and specifically the weather stats:

http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm
Thnx, it is excellent site.

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?

User avatar
Grad
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 11:37
Location: Russia

grad

#14

Post by Grad » 12 Nov 2004, 13:54

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..

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004, 20:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

#15

Post by Uninen » 12 Nov 2004, 14:50

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..

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”