It's a Cheat Code but he ain't telling us what, even if we bribe him with KarmaGawwad wrote:
Btw, your sig makes no sense Don.
Edit: or is that some sort of combo?
I mean, what more can a guy want. This guy ain't gonna sqeal
I mean, what more can a guy want. This guy ain't gonna sqeal
Finns didn't have the awesomest supplies either...Longbow wrote:
Oh, I forgot Mannerheim's (sp?) line - one of the strongest defence lines known to humanity. Speaking of losses, Finland definitely won. But yet, USSR reached it's goal - territories, that were actually a reason of the war, were given to USSR.DonFck wrote:
If you're going to attack in the winter, wear some warm clothes, for Christ sake. If you're planning to invade a country and make it a part of the communist USSR and end up in a peace treaty after conquering maybe 150km land and getting more troops killed than.. ..I don't know what, you have lost. If you are fighting wars on several fronts and haven't thought that someone might actually want to hold on to their country.. ..well, you know where I'm going with this one.
The continuation war was basically USSR trying to penetrate into Finland again, but the Red machine just couldn't get through. Obsolete combat tactics vs. guerilla warfare, tbh.
As for winning land in the war, yes, the USSR succeeded (and later on totally ruined the land). If by winning the wars, that can be argued. IMO it was a Finnish victory, and if anything in favor for the USSR, maybe, just maybe it could be called a tie.
Considering the strength of attacking forces vs. the defence, Finland > USSR.
And USSR attacked in winter - 2+ methers of snow + landscape full of different size stones (under winter snow) made it close to impossible to attack with tanks. And how are you going to break heavy fortified line without tanks?
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying that Finish sucked at this war - they were heroes, their small military hold USSR army for 3 months and they had exellent cold weather equipment, but yet, you cant deny the fact that USSR succeed in impossible situation. Most of western militaries won't even try to fight in that conditions. Imo, considering all factors, losses were quite adequate.War took place in the middle of subarctic winter. Weather and landscape made them almost useless. Note that most of USSR losses were infantry - because infantry was the only military branch that was able to fight in that conditions. +most of that vehicles were quite outdated, only in the middle\end of war USSR army began to recieve shell-proof (early tanks were only bullet-proof) T-34's, KV-1, KV-2 - tanks with wide trucks, which was a crusial factor in winter war.130 aircraft vs. 3800 aircraft
30 tanks vs. 6541 tanks
From what I know, their winter equipment was far superior to USSR's.NooBesT wrote:
Finns didn't have the awesomest supplies either...
Their wooden skies rocked.Longbow wrote:
From what I know, their winter equipment was far superior to USSR's.NooBesT wrote:
Finns didn't have the awesomest supplies either...
The Mannerheim Line:Longbow wrote:
Oh, I forgot Mannerheim's (sp?) line - one of the strongest defence lines known to humanity.
One of the 30 Finnish tanks:most of that vehicles were quite outdated, only in the middle\end of war USSR army began to recieve shell-proof (early tanks were only bullet-proof) T-34's, KV-1, KV-2 - tanks with wide trucks, which was a crusial factor in winter war.130 aircraft vs. 3800 aircraft
30 tanks vs. 6541 tanks
One of the 6541 Soviet tanks:
Thats T-26, probably war trophy, not Finnish tank. Yet I agree they haven't any good ones.
KV-2, was based on experience Russian forces had in Finland - Mannerheim's line had not only trenches (like in the picture above) but bunkers with up to 2 methers of reinforced concrete, armed with various AT sistems. Only a few of new soviet tanks seen action and only at the end of 3 month war.
Most of russian tanks during winter war were BT series (BT-2 - BT-7), T-26, T-28 and T-35. Only a few of new desighns seen real action - like some of 141 KV-1's Russia had in times of Winter War. Old soviet tanks mentioned above hadnt shell-proof armour, their armour was only bullet-proof. Which means that one hit from 37mm AT gun (I'm sure Finnish had those guns) would penetrate even front armour. And like I said before, the landscape itself was anti-tank - huge rocks\stones covered with 1.5-2 methers of snow and ice. And it was winter, really cold in that place, you know. Not some soft european winter...
By the way, I did some research and found out that T-34's weren't even ready yet - only A-32 prototype seen action.
Well if USSR had really sucky equipment, maybe then. Finnish army only got better supplies in the continuation war.Longbow wrote:
From what I know, their winter equipment was far superior to USSR's.NooBesT wrote:
Finns didn't have the awesomest supplies either...
By equipment I mean such a simple thing like warm cloths. Probably 60% of Russian losses were not due to Finnish gunfire, but all those pour conscripts froze to death because they haven't proper cloths for subarctic winter. You may have exellent small arms, tanks, aircraft but if you are freezing and you are sick you wont be able to fight, would you?NooBesT wrote:
Well if USSR had really sucky equipment, maybe then. Finnish army only got better supplies in the continuation war.
Last edited by Longbow (2008-02-08 15:54:53)
Warm clothes? Some of the soldiers had so much given from the army as a rifle and a belt...
Rest was what ever they had on when they left their homes.
Rest was what ever they had on when they left their homes.
I would fight with the Fins, Royal Marines, and FFL because they were the best that I have ever fought / trained with.
fuck.
is it me or will finland fucking punch through your tanks
What about our SAS/4RAR?usmarine wrote:
I would fight with the Fins, Royal Marines, and FFL because they were the best that I have ever fought / trained with.
i wouldn't. almost all of the deaths come from training accidents (blackhawks flying into eachother)some_random_panda wrote:
What about our SAS/4RAR?usmarine wrote:
I would fight with the Fins, Royal Marines, and FFL because they were the best that I have ever fought / trained with.
The winter war began when the Soviet Union led by Josef Stalin attacked Finland on November 30, 1939, three months after the invasion of Poland by Germany that started World War II. Because the attack was judged as illegal, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 14. Finnish resistance frustrated the Soviet forces, who outnumbered the Finns 4 to 1 in men, 200 to 1 in tanks and 30 to 1 in aircraft.
Think this tells of the Russian losses.''During four months of fighting, the Soviet Army suffered huge losses. One Red Army General remarked that "we have won enough ground to bury our dead."
Yes the Finns had ''good'' supplies........At the beginning of the war, only those Finnish soldiers who were in active service at the time had uniforms and weapons. The rest had to make do with their own clothing, which was their normal winter clothing in many instances, with a semblance of an insignia added. These mismatched "uniforms" were nicknamed "Model Cajander" after the Prime Minister Aimo Cajander. The Finns alleviated their shortages by making extensive use of equipment, weapons and ammunition captured from the enemy.
Are we still doing this?
I need around tree fiddy.