Winter War

[Kraut]

In a EA I've invaded Finnland and I'm slowly pushing the finns back (my troops taking huuge losses while the finns only suffer minor losses .. the usual going). One thing that should be corrected is the tough swedish aid, as we've already found out the swed were far less powerfull early in the war (therefor their main army was already shrinked) and consequently their aid should be a lot weaker, too.

[Palantir]

Talk about losses!

I decided to take it to the limit and try conquering Finland out right (as early as I could) using 95% of the Soviet Army. And it was a fiasco.

I had to quit the game as Allies due to the complete and total defeat of the Russians in Finland.

My losses were: RS/LRS losses of 42+K, Armor 1100+, Air 1,800+.
I was 4 hexes from Helsinki. It looked like I would still be able to take the country after 12 turns of combat until the Swede's et al arrived and ended my campaign. (The Sitz was 3 turns away.) I had rolling REORGS nearly every other turn for most of the campaign that effected 2/3 of my forces at times.

The losses were so severe that there was not a chance of Russia withstanding a German invasion. I estimated that it would take 110 turns to recoup my losses bearing no further casualties.

That makes my record 0-3 as Allies at taking / damaging Finland.
How is everyone else doing at it?

Kerry :cheeky:

[Siberian HEAT]

There should somehow be an option that let's Russia claim the border up to the historical point inside Finland that the Winter War ended. Destruction of Finland is not necessarily the end-all of the Winter War...rather limited "breathing room" for the Reds.

Once the "Winter War" entered the springtime...the Finns advantage was over and the Russians should start to roll over the Finns. This is not modelled in the game. With most "Winter Wars" taking place in the summer. Allied losses are horrific and as Kerry points out - the Russians are so weakened as to be vulnerable to early German attack. It is limitation of the game engine that you cannot have limited cease-fires...although maybe a house rule is possible allowing Reds to "declare" a cease fire on the partition border once they reach that line...after which Finland cannot attack the Soviets until Germany is at war with USSR.

It is a shame Sitzkrieg is there...because Winter '40 should be the only time Russians should invade Finland...using winter bonus and such.

[Chuck?]

One idea is to wait until the winter of 40-41 and get the bonuses.

[Kraut]

Finland is a bloody one, we are at turn 20 and I've already lost 13K LR, 1300 planes and 900 tanks, I am slowly advancing at one hex/turn and hope to conquer Helsinki before the Sitzkrieg starts. I threw almost everything against the finns but still they are able to put up a marvellous defence.

The Winter War has to be conducted before Winter '39 or during spring '40, wait until winter 40/41 and your depleted army will be overrun in spring '41 by rested german corps.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Kerry

That makes my record 0-3 as Allies at taking / damaging Finland.
How is everyone else doing at it?


most recently in 2 stages.

Stage 1. 1939: objectives everything upto the inner exclusion zone. then stop. Once the Finns fort up on a narrow front your infantry won't be able to dislodge them, and you don't have enough tanks yet.

Stage 2 winter 40-41 mass a hoard of mech corps along the southern front and bludgeon forward with ignore loss attacks. With only ML attacks I've found that the Russians will consistantly break off the attack before breaking the Finn lines, and the high level of Finnish supply makes wearing them down with ant attacks ineffective at best. Once you break through, move to block any Finns attempting to relieve the capital by pulling back from the kupio area. Since you don't want the Finns in a reconstitution loop, make sure that they can retreat from Helsinki istead of being evaporated.

[Mark Stevens]

Should the Russians be trying to conquer Finland outright?

A combination of an early tough Finnish defense and, later, Stalin's fear of what would happen vis-a-vis the Western Powers if he pressed on were the reason he stopped the Red Army and accepted the proposed armistice.

The Anglo-French were proposing massive intervention, and the French were even planning to bomb the USSR's airfields at Baku. It's also very plausible that the Swedes would have chosen to intervene if it looked as though Sweden would be conquered outright.

We can't really model this properly. It would almost need another 'Eastern Crusade' type option, with the Western allies attacking the USSR and the latter actually joining the Axis in the same way as the Pro-Axis Poles.

I think that what we have at present is the Russians being able to conquer Finland up to the historical line, then taking enormous casualties if they press on, perhaps even crippling themselves. But why would any players choose to do that, particularly if they're subscribers to this forum?

[Kraut]

Mark, I totally agree with you, what stopped Stalin werent some superhuman finnish elite corps who were able to make a stand against the entire red army but the possible political consequences for Stalin.

So, instead of modelling the finns extra tough to make it impossible or very bloody for the soviets to occupie Finnland, impose harsh penalties on the soviets if they ruthlessly conquer Finland anyway.

Some possibilities: French bombing raid on Baku inflicting heavy damage an causing the allied supply level to drop by 1 point.

Model the US+UK LandLease to the soviets via onMap units that are named turn 142 or similar and represent the turn the allied player can disband them/rescieve the LL. If Finland is conquered during the WinterWar no LL goes to russia and the LL-units are withdrawn from the map thus representing the US/UK are unwilling to support such a ruthless Russia.

French and UK units arrive at Finland to help the finnish and Sweden, totally aware that they are next on Stalins list and seeing French/UK units arriving on the battlefield, joins the axis to fight against russia.

THAT would made me think twice whether I still want to conquer Finnland although the soviets should be able to do it (once you have reduced the finnish corps to their historical strength)

[Palantir]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Should the Russians be trying to conquer Finland outright?

I think that what we have at present is the Russians being able to conquer Finland up to the historical line, then taking enormous casualties if they press on, perhaps even crippling themselves. But why would any players choose to do that, particularly if they're subscribers to this forum?


Hi Mark.

1. I think any nation should be allowed "in the game system" to attack & have the opportunity to capture any said nation. By limiting the possiblities it lessens the "I'm in control" aspect of EA.
So Russia should have the opportunity to take Finland as it stood historically.

2. That said I can see adding political "penalties" to them doing so. If the Russian player wants it bad enough he should be ABLE to take it and then accept the fall out.

3. After seeing the new RUSS/Finland border in 1.8 it finally looked possible to take out Finland if maximum effort was applied by the Russians.
I tried it vs S. HEAT to eliminate any Axis threat later on from that front. It didn't take any special skills by him to defeat Russia, just sit and defend and watch my units go into REORG every other turn. After a certain point I just decided to see if I could break the Finns no matter the cost and take Finland.
Enter the Swedes- battle over, enter the Sitz, campaign & war lost.

And as you mentioned, my effort crippled the USSR to the point that it would never be in shape to defend itself. But it was rather silly watching a few "small" units take few casualties while the massive & entire Russian Bear was skinned alive. :confused:

I figured that 95% of the Soviet Army (how many hundreds of Corps?) would be enough to quickly overrun tiny 5 Corps Finland- I was wrong, but I don't think throwing in 100% would have helped.

Kerry :cheeky:

[Mark Stevens]

I've tried to read up about the Winter War recently, which is one area of the war in Europe that I know hardly anything about, apart from some vague idea about the brave Finns doing well in their forests but finally being overwhelmed by superior numbers and equipment. But why did Stalin stop: there was no pressure from his ally, Hitler, and Uncle Joe was never bothered about sacrificing the lives of his troops, let alone the local population, to fulfil his strategic objectives? Knocking out Finland would have restored an area lost to Russia after the Russian Civil War, which was always an underlying ambition, and permanently removed a potential threat to his northern front. From their contingency plans we now know that the USSR contemplated an eventual war with Germany sometime in the early 1940s.

I hadn't realised until I did more research just how seriously the Western Allies took the whole issue: they were determined to stop the German-Russian alliance from achieving any more easy successes. Troops from both countries - the French Premier had offered 100,000 - were being assembled, there was massive public support for intervention in Finland, and the Western Allies were prepared to violate Norwegian neutrality if it didn't cooperate in allowing men and equipment to pass through it's territory. This also dovetailed nicely with the plan to choke off Germany's iron ore supplies from Sweden through the seizure of Narvik. General Weygand, commanding the French force in the Levant, had come up with an imaginative plan to attack the USSR's vunerable oil wells at Baku from his Syrian airbases. All of this was mothballed when the Finns were forced to ask for an armistice. How much of this did Stalin know? We know that there were many Communist sympathisers and intelligence agents in the West, and preparations to aid Finland on the scale envisaged could hardly have been kept secret.

The Red Army had been well bloodied by the Winter War, but there's no doubt that it could have crushed the Finns, at the cost of many more casualties, in the sense of driving into Helsinki: presumably this would have led to a guerilla war in the northern forests, but the USSR had never shrunk from harsh measures against its own people, and it's unlikely this would have deterred Stalin.

If this is correct, then the threat of Western intervention must have weighed heavily on his mind.

There's no way to simulate this in the scenario. If we actually have Russia embroiled in a full-scale war with the West in 1939-40 as a result of an attempt to conquer Finland the whole course of the conflict will be so radically altered as to render it meaningless as a 'WWII in Europe' game.

I'm happy to listen to alternatives, but think that the present exclusion zone and arguably overstrength Finnish units lead to a historicalish result, and provides a decent Axis Finland when (if) the Russo-German war occurs. Players who argue that the Red Army should be given the chance to conquer Finland outright have got to come up with suggestions for simulating the West's planned response - at least four French and one British corps, and supporting assets, under Axis control(?!) - and its likely consequences on Western-USSR relations, without losing the essense of the War in Europe.

Remember, any penalties we apply to the Russians mustn't affect the Western Allies' defence against the Germans.

Just to reiterate, this isn't a speculative 'what-if' in the limited sense of the Arab Rebels, or Germany storming Malta, or even the 'Eastern Crusade' version: the Anglo-French were actually preparing troops and equipment to assist the Finns against the USSR and were planning to launch air strikes into Russia from Syria.

The underlying problem is that the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany from August 1939 - June 1940. No way a two-sided game like TOAW can handle it.

Now, who still wants to go to Helsinki?

(I take the point about the lack of early Russian tank replacements and will add those in.)

------------------------------------------------

'If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take Open Order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And their women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go your God like a soldier.'

From 'The Young British Soldier' - Rudyard Kipling

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I'm happy to listen to alternatives, but think that the present exclusion zone and arguably overstrength Finnish units lead to a historicalish result, and provides a decent Axis Finland when (if) the Russo-German war occurs. Players who argue that the Red Army should be given the chance to conquer Finland outright have got to come up with suggestions for simulating the West's planned response - at least four French and one British corps, and supporting assets, under Axis control(?!) - and its likely consequences on Western-USSR relations, without losing the essense of the War in Europe.

Remember, any penalties we apply to the Russians mustn't affect the Western Allies' defence against the Germans.


Why not? The consequences of shifting that much material out of France would be to seriously weaken the french defence against a German onslaught. Discounting reserves, and the magniot divs, the french have 38 corps (I used 1 corp =2 inf/armor divs = 4 light cav divs because it fit the numbers fairly well), 44 counting the alpine guard. Sucking 10% of the total mobile forces from France wouldn't be harmless to the allies. Coloring several corps differently, and then withdrawing them when they're sent to finland would be a reasonable result of Stalins actions, and since it's execution would be fully under allied control it's not something the axis could manipulate to ease it's task. A souring of east/west relations, and the reduction/removal of LL armor/air to the soviets could be done by swaping formations: withdraw the sceduled armor/mech corps (normally colored, not dark red) and russian AF, and replace them with formations that have less/no allied equiptment in them. For the armor, the easiest way to handle this probabally would be to have both formations set to deploy, with the LL one killed if stalin goes for the throat, and the nonLL one withdrawn on the begining of war between Germany and Russia unless canceled (as part of the event chain for an attempted Finnish knockout). The only real problem I see (asside from the events needed) is that it would be much less expensive for the allies if they waited until after France surrendered, and the brits had thier hands full in North africa before attacking.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Dan Neely


Why not? The consequences of shifting that much material out of France would be to seriously weaken the french defence against a German onslaught.

As you say, France has 44 Corps. The forces promised Finland would amount to about one- or at most two- of these corps. As it happened, the French didn't lose through lack of units- the Allies in fact enjoyed a marginal numerical superiority over the Germans in May 1940. I would say sending one, two... or even more units to Finland would not seriously prejudice the French war effort.

[Mark Stevens]

My point is that '...a souring of east-west relations...' is a euphemism for 'The Western Allies declare war on the USSR'. As I read the history, Britain and France would have been at war with both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in early 1940. And Stalin wasn't known for his forgiving nature. Once Allied troops had been killed by the Russians in significant numbers, and vice versa, you could forget any assistance if Germany did attack the Soviet Union. Stabbing the Balts and the Poles in the back was one thing, but fighting regular British and French units would have poisoned western public opinion forever.

To reflect it properly, you'd need a similar (Allied) Option as for the German's Pro-Axis Poles: 'Send troops to assist Finland' triggers the withdrawal of the Allied Russians, and their replacement with equivalent Pro-Axis units.

+ 50 on USA Entry?

Maybe Allied sponsored revolts on the fringes of the USSR? And arms and instructors airdrops to Poland, the Baltic States, and elsewhere?

Allies acquiesce in Japan's war against China and encourage Japan to move against the Soviet Union in the east? Stalin provides aid to the Communist Chinese?

Probably make for a fascinating game, but nothing like the WWII European campaign. If anything, you'd end up with something resembling a Nato-Warsaw Pact war in the early 1950s, with the whole of a much stronger Germany fighting as a Warsaw Pact country. I'd guess Nazi Germany gets Central and Western Europe, and the Russians take the East, Finland, (Sweden, Norway?), Turkey, Iran, and meet up with the Italians somewhere in the Middle East? United Kingdom itself probably saved by massive USA reinforcements and their naval superiority.

Followed by an absolute bloodbath when Germany and the USSR eventually go for each other, if the USA hasn't nuked them both first.

For me personally, it's too speculative to pursue in the context of this scenario.

[Menschenfresser]

I haven't played much of this scenario/game (meaning EA not CoW), but I have recently read quite a lot about the Winter War. The reasons the Finns prevailed militarily throughout the opening of the assualt never has seemed to me so much a grand testament to their military genius or superb fighting skills, but to the ineptitude of the Russian assualt. The Russians left Russia proper without large amounts of winter gear, many of whom were soldiers from the Caucus region...not used to the north. And their mechanized divisions just crapped out owning to the fact that they couldn't leave the roads. The Finns cut up their columns and then assasinated the pockets. Basically the Finns just used what worked and the Russians didn't.

I don't know exactly how it is modelled in this scenario, but I gather from this thread that the Finns are in possesion of super units to ward off the Soviet numbers. The Finns should be somewhat better than the Soviets, probably much better owing to the mechanics of TOAW in order to hold off the numbers, but there should be a possible peak of their resistance.

The Finns supply stockpile was horrible. They were able to fight, but on the eve of the cease fire, they were facing a dire situation. According to a memior put out by the defense minister at the time, the Finns had been promised military aid from France, Sweden and other countries. However, as he, the minister, discussed the situation with each ambassador or diplomat, he got varying numbers. One French official told him they would send 50,000 troops, another 15,000, another 6,000, etc. And the time table was that they wouldn't arrive at the front for a month. So basically they had to decide if they could hold for a month and lose the Russian offer or sign the treaty. The problem was...they didn't know how great the assistance would be.

I think the Finns should be defeatable, without sacrificing all of the Soviet army to do it, but it should also be a heavy price. Like I said, I don't know the scenario that much, but an optimal design would include Finn supply or proficiency dropping off after a few months of russian attack resulting in a few months of hell for the Russians and then a quick drop in Finn effectiveness.

No scenario designer, but what about putting their only supply source not that far into Finnish territory. Northern end of the Karelian Ithmus or something like that? Just a stupid suggestion. I really have no idea about this scenario...just chiming in. Maybe I'll go home and invade Finland and come back tomorrow with some more pointed suggestions.

Sorry.

[Kraut]

Mark:

I am not to educated in the WinterWar and the possible 'what-ifs' had Stalin pressed on his attack but I cant imagine Nazi Germany and Russia fighting against the west, the person Hitler was the garatie that this would never have happened.
Hitler only signed the Hitler-Stalin pact because he needed his east front secure so that he could crush the west. Hitler saw bolschiwism as his enemy number one, he even tried to get the UK on his side to fight side by side as his junor partner. In '44/45 when most german risistance in the west already deceased the germans still fought violently against the soviets (of course also because they committed huge numbers of war crimes in russia and feared the soviet vengeance).

A result of stalins actions in Finland could have been that no LL equipment would have been send to Russia, and that the cold war would have started immediately after germny collapsed.

one way could be instead of removing all on map soviet units and replacing them with units that dont have UK/US equipment assigned, equip the soviet corps with equipment similar in strength than the LLsed ones (and no slots for this equipment in the UK/US units) and make this LL equipment avauilable by disbanding LL units at appropriate times. If Stalin goes after Helsinki, withdraw the Soviets LL unints thereby denying the soviets the western aid and as a consequence a far weaker russia is fighting the germans. To simulate that the western military goods are no longer going to russia some additional US/UK supply units should be disbanded to represent the tanks bolstering the western allies instead of the soviets.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Kraut
If Stalin goes after Helsinki, withdraw the Soviets LL unints thereby denying the soviets the western aid and as a consequence a far weaker russia is fighting the germans.

If you go this route remember that the majority of Lend Lease wasn't war material. Without the Spam, boots etc. the Russians would have had to make them themselves (or starve and get blisters), meaning less Russians building T-34s etc.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Kraut
I cant imagine Nazi Germany and Russia fighting against the west,

I expect with the West at war with the USSR Hitler would have used the opportunity to reconcile Germany with them- and gone to war with the Russians alongside them. Still totally outside the scope of EA.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Menschenfresser
I don't know exactly how it is modelled in this scenario, but I gather from this thread that the Finns are in possesion of super units to ward off the Soviet numbers. The Finns should be somewhat better than the Soviets, probably much better owing to the mechanics of TOAW in order to hold off the numbers, but there should be a possible peak of their resistance.


The finns aren't super units, they're midway beteen the germans and their balkan alies in capability. The problem is that the russians have very little armor at this point, and that their inf corps are near worthless on the attack at the start of the game. later on with higher proficiency, and the deployment of armor/assault gun bns to the corps their attack power will increase considerablely. Adding the missing equiptment, and upping the prof from 50 to 60 will increase thier attack power by 50%. Between the pitiful offensive capabilites of the starting russain units, and the exclusion zones that prevent largescale flanking manuevers the Russians just don't have the space to make any headway once the Finns get fortified in a defensive line.

[Mark Stevens]

And as the Red Army showed no aptitude whatsoever for such outflanking manoeuvres during the Winter War, and we simply can't accommodate the Western Allies declaring war on the Soviet Union, I reckon the current situation is best left as it is.

(But I will add some early Russian tanks and armoured cars to the Replacement Editor.)