Finnish defence forces

[cam0flage 0]

Maybe you could work out a deal, the CV90 would be a good addition to the FDF mod, and maybe the Swedish mod would like to have a XA-series vehicle model? Just a suggestion ...

[granQ 293]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 01 2003,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CV90 vs BMP-3 article sums it up by saying:

'We find no obvious answer to the question why Finland decided to buy CV90 vehicles which are undeniably high quality but are very expensive.'

Main arguments against CV90 were high price tag, lack of missile armament, large size and weight, inablity to swim.

Main defects of BMP-3 were unergonomic crew compartments, weak but light aluminium armor, weak power transmission, lack of modern night-vision devices.

They state that with the price of one CV90 vehicle you could buy 3 BMP-3 vehicles.<span id='postcolor'>

i know our neighbor in the east, (finland) loves the old cold war days, but things have changed.

And in the future all conflict Finland/sweden will see is on peacekeeping missions (hopefully) and then it is very important you don't loose lifes, (politics). So better finland says we can help out by sending 3 cv90's then sending 9 bmp3's in a "high risk" vehicle.

The lack of modern night vision for the bmp i wouldn't say is a problem. But the cv90 got many others information systems. Not sure what diffrences from the 9040 and the 9030 in technology.

As shar told you, you can put a bill2 on it. and then it would become a great threat for modern MBT's.

In short, the cv90 are constructed with the feature in mind.

And guess finland have to start do as sweden. Skip the invasion defense and aim for a smaller army but with better weapons.

EDIT:

I think buying the CV90 was a political decision

*cough*NATO*cough* []

don't want to say you are stupid but sweden is not part of NATO. if that was the reason, why not the warrior or M2a2 ?

[Unatomber 0]

I think that the decision between the BMP-3 and CV90 was made with Nato-compatibility in mind, Sweden has worked together with NATO somewhat more than Russia. Finland has turned its looks more and more towards the western world, which can be seen in our material acquisitions during the past years.

[Gollum1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GranQ @ Jan. 02 2003,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT:

I think buying the CV90 was a political decision

*cough*NATO*cough* []

don't want to say you are stupid but sweden is not part of NATO. if that was the reason, why not the warrior or M2a2 ?<span id='postcolor'>

The CV90 is more NATO-*compatible*.

And don´t get all defensive, it isn´t your patriotic duty to defend an piece of metal

Just kidding, of course.

[granQ 293]

gollum, of course not, but seeing i will serve the army next year or this year i need to think it is the best

[Gollum1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GranQ @ Jan. 03 2003,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gollum, of course not, but seeing i will serve the army next year or this year i need to think it is the best <span id='postcolor'>

Well, if not the best then you can take comfort in it being about 50% bigger than ours

Note that I didn´t say better!

[digitalcenturion 20]

When it comes to Sweden and Finland, i think they both have about equal chanches defeding their country. Finland has more fighting spirit but sweden has better tech. Wars of offensive movements would fail for both countries, i am led to believe.

(ofcourse, if sweden had to defend against an eastern invasion, they'd have an huge advantage, cuz whatever invading army has to go thru Finland first. No easy feat, as WW2 showed us )

[Gollum1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DigitalCenturion @ Jan. 05 2003,19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When it comes to Sweden and Finland, i think they both have about equal chanches defeding their country. Finland has more fighting spirit but sweden has better tech. Wars of offensive movements would fail for both countries, i am led to believe.

(ofcourse, if sweden had to defend against an eastern invasion, they'd have an huge advantage, cuz whatever invading army has to go thru Finland first. No easy feat, as WW2 showed us  <!--emo&)<span id='postcolor'>

Aren´t you a bit biased...

And the situation is TOTALLY different than in WW2, Russia would crush the whole of Scandinavia like a fly IF they attacked.

In 1939, the average Russian soldier was poorly led, demoralized and poorly trained. Russia realized it had to get its shit together and started removing incompetent political Comisars from command positions, plus they came out with some real hardware like the T-34 and IL-2 Sturmovik.

Russia defeated Nazi Germany, contrary to what the Yanks and Brits will tell you.

We´re just lucky that America was there in 1945 to stop the Red tide, or they would be speaking Russian in Paris. And Stockholm. And Helsinki.

How did I get into this topic?

[Unatomber 0]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gollum1 @ Jan. 06 2003,176)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How did I get into this topic?<span id='postcolor'>

I really don't know. But in my opinion russian army has so little funds that i dare to say that if there would be a war between Russia and Finland, the Finnish Defence Forces would have all the odds in its favor because every finnish man has been through our high standard army and we still have some of the winter war veterans alive to tell their grandsons and -daughters their stories about the war.

 <---- how long is this smiley going to be available??

[cam0flage 0]

I found out something that might be interesting for active posters on this thread; the current strength of FDF (not counting reserves of the high command) from Military Balance 2002-2003:

MBT: 33 T-54, 74 T-55M, 161 T-72

AIFV: 164 BMP-1PS, 110 BMP-2, some CV9030

APC: 112 BTR-60PB, 73 BTR-50PK, 655 XA-180/185/200, 261 MT-LBV

Towed artillery 122mm: 510 H63 (D-30); 130mm: 127 K-54; 152mm: 234 incl H-55 (D-20), H88-40, H88-37 (ML-20), H88-38, K89; 155mm: 136 K83 (M-74), 28 K98

Self-propelled artillery 122mm: 72 PsH74 (2S1); 152mm: 18 Telak91 (2S5)

Multiple rocket launchers 122mm: 24 RakH76 (BM-21), 36 RakH89 (RM-70)

Mortars 81mm: 1416; 120mm: 900 (some SP) incl KRH92

ATGW PST-OHJ82 (AT-5), PST-OHJ83M (TOW2)

RL 112mm: APILAS

RCL 66mm 66KES-75, 66KES-88; 95mm: 700 SM58-61

Air defence guns 23mm: 1100 ITK61 (ZU-23); 30mm; 35mm: 16 ITK88, ITPSV90 Marksman (GDF-005 SP); 57mm: 47 ITK60 (S60), 12 ITPSV (SU-57-2SP) SAM ITO86M (SA-18), ITO86 (SA-16), 21 ITO90 (Crotale NG), 18 ITO96 (SA-11)

[Gollum1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Unatomber @ Jan. 06 2003,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dare to say that if there would be a war between Russia and Finland, the Finnish Defence Forces would have all the odds in its favor because every finnish man has been in the army.  <span id='postcolor'>

So has every Russian man. Russia has a draft too y´know.

Get your facts straight

[cam0flage 0]

You cannot claim that every man has been in the army, because there always are people who choose civil service or are unfit to serve, due to for example some illness. I don't know about the Russian conscription system, but what I've heard from the Russians I know, they try to avoid military service as much as they can.

[Unatomber 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gollum1 @ Jan. 06 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So has every Russian man. Russia has a draft too y´know.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't say they wouldn't have, or at least that wasn't my intention , I only told u how things are in Finland. BTW I updated my previous post so no one gets offended . I've heard though that the fighting morale of the russian infantry wouldn't be very high, correct me if I'm wrong.

[CanadianTerror 0]

Finland, the unknown superpower?...oh come on, it's easy to say those kinds of things when you dont have to back them up.

The Canadian Armed Forces are VERY well trained but I wouldnt go claiming that we could/would take on other countries because thats not what the CAF do.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CanadianTerror @ Jan. 07 2003,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finland, the unknown superpower?...oh come on, it's easy to say those kinds of things when you dont have to back them up.

The Canadian Armed Forces are VERY well trained but I wouldnt go claiming that we could/would take on other countries because thats not what the CAF do.<span id='postcolor'>

The difference is that Sweden (then including Finland) has beat the Russians on many occasions. We've even occupied Moscow and the last time we fought, we destroyed most of their navy. This was slightly less then 200 years ago, but Russia was very big compared to Sweden back then too.

I'm not saying that we could beat them, but we would indeed put up a fight that would made them think twice about trying to occupy us

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finland, the unknown superpower?...oh come on, it's easy to say those kinds of things when you dont have to back them up.

The Canadian Armed Forces are VERY well trained but I wouldnt go claiming that we could/would take on other countries because thats not what the CAF do.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that Finland is a superpower People have just pointed out that if there would be a war between Finland and Russia, Finland would have a decent chance of defending itself, due to the deteriorating state of the Russian army. Of course, if Russia would concentrate all of their troops on the Finnish border, it would most likely end with the Russia occupying Finland. I don't know how much you know about the history of Finland over there in Canada, but we did prevent an occupation by Russia two times during the WWII. Regarding your comments about CAF and "taking on" other countries, the Finnish Defence Forces are certainly not suited for large scale offensive actions, instead like the name insist, for defence.

[Wonder 0]

Hey! I was wondering if you are planning to make an island along with this mod, or are you going to use some of the existing ones that bear the most resemblance to finnish nature? I would definately like to see some finnish countryside with lots of lakes and a highway airstrip somewhere, from where you can launch interception missions.

[cam0flage 0]

As far as I know, there is no island under works. Maybe in the future, if BIS decides to bless the gamers with some quality software ...

[desantnik 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but we did prevent an occupation by Russia two times during the WWII<span id='postcolor'>

You mean the when Finland avoided occupation by siceding land to the Soviet Union after being overrun by large numbers of Soviet troops? I am sorry camoflage but technically the Russians did win. Finland did remarkably during the war, I will praise that and I admit that the only way Russia won was by deploying something like 8 times more soldiers but Russia still got what it wanted.

That was the first occupation now for the second

In 1944, after the Russians lifted the siege of Leningrad, they decided to pursue Finnish forces back to the original prewar borders. Finland did not beat of a second occupation as you put it. The Russians just merely stopped at the border because by that time they were not as inexperienced as in the 1939 conflict and had to end the war with Germany. Finland was not a major concern to the main army in 1944 but we did want our prewar borders back and thats what we got.

To tell you my feelings though is that I am a native of Arkhangelsk and I really admire the Finnish fighters. I am not condonning the Soviet Attack on Finland in '39 but I dont want the Soviets to be portrayed as losers because they did win.

[Blake 0]

'...Russia won was by deploying something like 8 times more soldiers but Russia still got what it wanted.

That was the first occupation now for the second'

In Winter War you are referring to, Stalin's initial plan at the start of the hostilities was to occupy entire Finland and that was evident from captured 44th Division documents which showed plans to advance through central Finland and cut the country in half. But as there was no significant advances on any front until February 1940 Stalin settled in to get territories

initially demanded in his pre-war ultimatum to Finland. In that sense, Stalin did not get what he ultimately desired.

In Continuation War 41-44 the initial aim of the 44 summer offensive was not the occupation of entire Finland, but of course if Finnish Army would have collapsed entirely during the critical defensive battles Stalin would not have hesitated to do so. But as stated, Stalin had a priority to rush towards Berlin and not waste time dealing with Finland which was pretty insignificant to Soviet strategy.

Ok, this discussion is getting a bit of carried away now. The scenario we're figuring out at the moment is different than simple Finland vs. Russian Federation scenario, which I think is a bit far-fetched in my opinion.

And we're dealing with a modern-day scenario with no resemblence to WWII events nor we're trying to make it look like that Finnish Army is any better or has any more fighting spirit than other armies.

[digitalcenturion 20]

I find it somewhat amusing that some people think the modern day russian military would destory scandinavia. The russian military hasn't even been able to do their business in Chechnya properly. And Chechnya doesnt really have the same measure of organized army that Finland/Sweden has.. and we have not even begun talking about Norway, Denmark and Iceland, all NATO countries (i think)...

oh and techincally Russia might have won, but if we are getting really techincal here we might as well not that most of the "losers" of WW2 in fact had their position greatly enhanced after WW2, for example Germany, Japan and Finland

[cam0flage 0]

Someone could offer us a new screenshot to divert this conversation from slipping into a endless discussion about winners and losers of WWII.

[Blake 0]

I would be careful to draw conclusions from Checnya. Sure, the first attack in 1994 was a military blunder in terms of losses and tactics used, but anyway the Russians eventually took Czezchnya. Then again in 1999 after the Moscow terror bombings. Chechnyan fighters are now split to small cells or driven out to neighboring republics. They have to rely on desperate terror attacks to get some attention to their cause and which I believe, leads to nothing.

Throughout history, Russian Army has been geared up to keep going despite the losses. After Soviet Union's dismal performance in Winter War Hitler said about Russia 'you only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.' 4 years after the Operation Barbarossa the doors of the Reichstag were kicked in by the Red Army. 25 million killed, most of it's European territory occupied the Red Army still won the war. No other nation could have suffered such losses and still keep fighting. And it would have won it single-handedly though at slower pace even without Allied invasion.

Scandinavian Armies are good defensive armies and would cause serious trouble to any invader. But I would not use Checnya as prime example of Russian Army's poor performance. If a serious large-scale conflict would arise, Russian Army's offensive punch and ability to sustain losses would be among the highest in the world.

[Edge 2]

Cam0flage: Good point! I hope admins wont notice this moves a bit off-topic and move it to Off-topic;)

Wonder: Now I scope how to get to some good maps (at least 1:25000) of Suursaari island, which is currently part of Russia but until 1947 it was Finnish (passed to Sowiet Union after post-WW2 dialogs in Paris, but Russians occupied it some time before), as far as I know. Very interesting terrain, nature, size cca 2x10 kilometers (almost ideal size for OFP), not to mention interesting historical background. The fact that it belongs to Russia makes the gathering of maps a bit harder

[Blake 0]

I searched and found libraries have some books and maps of Suursaari and other islands which were filled with bw photos but maps were not detailed enough. Suursaari would certainly be no.1 choice, but until better maps and Visitor-tool from BIS are available it's very hard to create a good island to meet demands. Other choices would be Tytärsaari, Lavansaari and Seiskari, more about them with maps at: http://www.luovutettukarjala.org/

Maybe a smaller map in the beginning would be better than a mammoth one.

The advantage of creating relatively unknown islands is that they give some liberties in accuracy. Too bad that accurate maps have to be obtained from Karttakeskus and that ain't cheap.