Finnish-Russian War

[Rick]

My understanding is that the lessons learned by the Russians from this embarrassment enabled them to somewhat/moderately/greatly aid them in beating the Germans? 

Edited July 7 by Rick

[futon]

I think they learned lessons during the war. The 1st two months were embarrassing. Next two months, they took it more serviously and leveraged their size advantage more effectively.

The Soviets gained useful experience in Khalkhin Gol as well.

[urbanoid]

To be honest I doubt whether any other military in the world would be able to break through Mannerheim line in such conditions, apart from numbers and very substantial firepower it demanded a complete disregard for the lives of their own people. 

[Rick]

On 7/6/2024 at 9:17 PM, futon said:

I think they learned lessons during the war. The 1st two months were embarrassing. Next two months, they took it more serviously and leveraged their size advantage more effectively.

The Soviets gained useful experience in Khalkhin Gol as well.

What "useful experience" did the Soviets learn from this?

[futon]

3 minutes ago, Rick said:

What "useful experience" did the Soviets learn from this?

They created a logistic chain to support their numorous tanks in the battle. US lend lease trucks haven't been arriving yet, so they did it with their own trucks. And the concept of mobile armored units was used. Just ahead of Germany putting the concept into practice. They learned the vulnerbilities of the BT series, so used that experience to make a more survivable design for the T-34 tank.

[Rick]

Just now, futon said:

They created a logistic chain to support their numorous tanks in the battle. US lend lease trucks haven't been arriving yet, so they did it with their own trucks. And the concept of mobile armored units was used. Just ahead of Germany putting the concept into practice. They learned the vulnerbilities of the BT series, so used that experience to make a more survivable design for the T-34 tank.

Did they establish new railroad routes?

[futon]

Just now, Rick said:

Did they establish new railroad routes?

For that battle specifically on the moment? I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

[Rick]

Thanks. Will have to look for any English language books on this conflict. 

[bojan]

2 hours ago, futon said:

...They learned the vulnerbilities of the BT series, so used that experience to make a more survivable design for the T-34 tank.

BT/T-26 vulnerabilities were already learned in Spain. T-34 was well in the development when Winter war started and finalized before "lessons learned" could be filtered back. But Winter war did prove that KV tank was superior design to previously preferred SMK and T-100. 

[futon]

45 minutes ago, bojan said:

BT/T-26 vulnerabilities were already learned in Spain. T-34 was well in the development when Winter war started and finalized before "lessons learned" could be filtered back. But Winter war did prove that KV tank was superior design to previously preferred SMK and T-100. 

Perhaps a number of stages to get enough people for the ball to move towards what become the T-34 as it was. Koshkin probably the first to envision it. Without the various experiences, the push to go heavier than A-32 may not have happened. 

[bojan]

No, push for higher protection than A-20/32 was taken as soon as 20t limit on weight was lifted, and that happened before Winter war, IIRC about fall of  1939.

Again, Soviets knew since Spain that their current (T-26, BT and T-28) tanks are highly vulnerable and knew what amount of armor was needed to reliably protect vs expected threats. Only thing holding them back on A-20/A-32 was 20t weight limit.

Edited July 8 by bojan

[MiGG0]

On 7/7/2024 at 11:53 AM, urbanoid said:

To be honest I doubt whether any other military in the world would be able to break through Mannerheim line in such conditions, apart from numbers and very substantial firepower it demanded a complete disregard for the lives of their own people. 

Well, Russia had numbers and lot more firepower. Mannerheim line was not actually that good and was designed only to delay (It was not Maginot line) in principle of "flexiple defence". It consisted mostly MG bunkers, trenches and obstacles.

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Well, Russia had numbers and lot more firepower. Mannerheim line was not actually that good and was designed only to delay (It was not Maginot line) in principle of "flexiple defence". It consisted mostly MG bunkers, trenches and obstacles.

Temperatures even below -40C, forests, frozen swamps, lakes and shit... nah, nobody else would even think about attacking in such conditions. 

[MiGG0]

Just now, urbanoid said:

Temperatures even below -40C, forests, frozen swamps, lakes and shit... nah, nobody else would even think about attacking in such conditions. 

 

Main defensive feature of Mannerheim line was natural obstacles like rivers and lakes... which froze and was then easy to cross even with tanks. Tanks overall (even T-26) was problem for finns as they had very few AT weapons (thats why Molotov cocktail was invented first place). Why attacks failed mostly was because RUS did suck in it. 

[sunday]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

 

Main defensive feature of Mannerheim line was natural obstacles like rivers and lakes... which froze and was then easy to cross even with tanks. Tanks overall (even T-26) was problem for finns as they had very few AT weapons (thats why Molotov cocktail was invented first place). Why attacks failed mostly was because RUS did suck in it. 

During the Spanish Civil War there was use of gasoline in breakable containers as a AT weapon already.

[bojan]

Late WW1 also, as well as Polish-Russian war.

[MiGG0]

55 minutes ago, sunday said:

During the Spanish Civil War there was use of gasoline in breakable containers as a AT weapon already.

 

My point was its usage in Winter War. It was only used in there because of necessity as there was pretty much nothing else.

Also technical point of view "molotov coctail" is not just burning gasoline. It was mixture of spirit, tar and petrol.

[Yama]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

 

Main defensive feature of Mannerheim line was natural obstacles like rivers and lakes... which froze and was then easy to cross even with tanks. Tanks overall (even T-26) was problem for finns as they had very few AT weapons (thats why Molotov cocktail was invented first place). 

AT rifles would have been extremely useful against most Soviet tanks of the time, however due to quite massive error in procurement they weren't available. Officer-dom was split whether Army should buy AT rifles or AT-machineguns, with the end result that neither was ordered.

Edited July 8 by Yama

[Olof Larsson]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

 

Main defensive feature of Mannerheim line was natural obstacles like rivers and lakes... which froze and was then easy to cross even with tanks. Tanks overall (even T-26) was problem for finns as they had very few AT weapons (thats why Molotov cocktail was invented first place). Why attacks failed mostly was because RUS did suck in it. 

And most of the front-line, was not defended by the Mannerheim line. At Suomussalmi the first line of defence, against an entire Russian division, was a few trees felled across the road, with at platoon of light infantry with no AT-weapons, that blocked the soviet advance. The soviets attacking in almost roadless terrain, and refusing the leave the few roads that existed and enter the woods, while the finns could ski around as they pleased, didn't exactly help.