Allied Intervention in Winter War

[chris N]

Okay, the big question is does Sweden and Norway want the communist giant to the east move closer to them or will it take a chance and allow the western allies to move by rail cars to Finland.
The Government of Norway and Sweden were afraid that the western allies were not really interested in helping Finland but in just seizing the Swedish Iron ore mines. This was Churchill's idea but I have proposed that the allies instead mean what they say and the purpose is to aid Finland.
The British Royal Navy could carry out far more agressive patrols in the North Sea combined with RAF air Recon so as to spot and stop any German invasion of Norway. If enough loses could be inflicted the Noweigans would be able to defeat the invasion and futher aid could arrive. It might be possible that Bomber command might stage strikes on Germany from Norway once hostilities had broken out.
The question is asked how would Hitler react? Well he had already authorized the invasion of Norway and Denmark but if the Kreigsmarine were to suffer heavy loses and the invasion force carred by sea was lost then he would really be in serios trouble.
As for Stalin, well I think that taking on Finland by itself was one thing but if the western allies did send the aid he might very well back down. While an allied force of 30-50,000 might be tiny conpared to the Red army it could give the Finns the aid that they needed. The arrival of those weapons plus additional airpower could also make the cost too high for the Soviet leader.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Can WWII carrier groups operate effectively in the Arctic?

Besides, there's still the matter of the German threat to France and the Low Countries. I think the Allies would keep a fair bit of their hardware back to deal with any potential German thrust westward.

Yes they can.

Instead of fleetcarriers even smaller escortcarriers made the Murmansk supply trips.

Today it's also still possible.
In the Falklands the British succesfully operated Harriers from small carriers in pretty bad weather too.

It's pretty pointless anyways; no way the British will send large taskforces into the Baltic, so they'll only be able to interdict the Northern approaches. It won't harm the SU that bad as it's not really a major port in this timeline (no trade with the Allies for example).

 

[ResPublica]

Yes they can.

They can? In arctic winter 1939? Barents sea in December whit all day night? Im baffled if its true.

Instead of fleetcarriers even smaller escortcarriers made the Murmansk supply trips.

As I said baffled. Got any link so i can be more baffled?

Today it's also still possible.
In the Falklands the British succesfully operated Harriers from small carriers in pretty bad weather too.

I tought that were betwene March and June 82. Southern summer to Southern winter whit the fighting in southern fall (May). Isn't Falklands Island much more north from the southpole than Murmansk is south of the northpole? Falklands 51° S to Murmansk 68° N. South Atlantic fall to Barents Sea Winter. 82 to 39... Small differences...

It's pretty pointless anyways; no way the British will send large taskforces into the Baltic, so they'll only be able to interdict the Northern approaches. It won't harm the SU that bad as it's not really a major port in this timeline (no trade with the Allies for example).

Forget the Baltics, moste ports there is iced during the Winter War and the passing of Oresound strait is a perfect time for luftwaffe to kill the RN.

But its not the harm that is the important here, SU forces are taking a beating as it is, its the messages its sending Stalin. That if he continues this war it means the risk of more troops and maby in other fronts.

 

[ResPublica]

Okay, the big question is does Sweden and Norway want the communist giant to the east move closer to them or will it take a chance and allow the western allies to move by rail cars to Finland.

No they don't so yes they would. Only problem is Germany threating to invade. So they don't want any wars on their soil.

The Government of Norway and Sweden were afraid that the western allies were not really interested in helping Finland but in just seizing the Swedish Iron ore mines.

Yes but thats not fore the iron but the Germans invading to get it back.

So whit British interventions plan OTL another POD that makes Sweden go to war whit SU anyway and you got Sweden (and Norway) alowing Allied troop movment.



Germanys respons:
Actualy Germany might accept the fact acompli that Swedish iron ore is in British hands by trying to grab the French iron ore in Alsace and other parts of France. Better a quick victory over France than a long war in Scandinavia. As long as Sweden and Norway not alowing allied bombers bases to bomb Germany of course. Better to have them fighting SU whit British suport.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

They can? In arctic winter 1939? Barents sea in December whit all day night? Im baffled if its true.

As I said baffled. Got any link so i can be more baffled?

During WWII the British were quite early very capable at operating from carriers at night ('42 onwards?).
Escort carriers were designed to be used for escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, also during winter.
I agree carrier operations will be restricted when at night and bad weather at the same time, but IRL even the little converted carriers were used in the PQ-convoys.

Thanks to the airpower given by (escort)carriers, losses in the Arctic Convoys dropped IRL, look at the difference between before PQ-18 and after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

If British managed to use Cheap, Vulnerable and Expendable ships (CVE's) in the Arctic in '42, they can also use fleetcarriers in '39 or '40.
If anything, having the Swordfish and other obsolescent equipment instead of more modern and faster airplanes might even be an advantage upthere.

But its not the harm that is the important here, SU forces are taking a beating as it is, its the messages its sending Stalin. That if he continues this war it means the risk of more troops and maby in other fronts.

The SU will probably take more of a beating than IRL, but OTOH they're the one and only side which can still afford it at that time; all Stalin has to do is wait and the Allies won't be able to increase troops, most likely as spring/summer approaches the Allies will have to move troops away, back to the Continent for the anticipated German attack.

Stalin doesn't have another major front (yet), the Allies do.


I mostly wanted to correct the rubbish which you posted here:

In the midle of an arctic Winter? No! Neither can modern. Can't find the link to when USA or UK tried it in the 90is but it ended horribly for some poor pilot.

Well, it is rubbish, or I am going slightly crazy.


edit:
nice example:
On 13 december 1944, two Fairey Swordfish (around during the Winter War) sank U-365, flying from escort carrier HMS Campania, near the Lofoten. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Campania_%28D48%29
The Lofoten, which are within the Arctic and at a higher latitude than Murmansk AFAIK.

(I'm aware that these Stringbags most likely had radar, which wasn't installed untill '43. I'm not trying to prove they can sink submarines in a ASW role, I'm proving they can be used at night or during bad weather just nicely.)

 

[ResPublica]

During WWII the British were quite early very capable at operating from carriers at night ('42 onwards?).
Escort carriers were designed to be used for escorting convoys in the North Atlantic, also during winter.
I agree carrier operations will be restricted when at night and bad weather at the same time, but IRL even the little converted carriers were used in the PQ-convoys.

Thanks to the airpower given by (escort)carriers, losses in the Arctic Convoys dropped IRL, look at the difference between before PQ-18 and after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

If British managed to use Cheap, Vulnerable and Expendable ships (CVE's) in the Arctic in '42, they can also use fleetcarriers in '39 or '40.
If anything, having the Swordfish and other obsolescent equipment instead of more modern and faster airplanes might even be an advantage upthere.

I mostly wanted to correct the rubbish which you posted here:

Well, it is rubbish, or I am going slightly crazy.


edit:
nice example:
On 13 december 1944, two Fairey Swordfish (around during the Winter War) sank U-365, flying from escort carrier HMS Campania, near the Lofoten. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Campania_(D48)
The Lofoten, which are within the Arctic and at a higher latitude than Murmansk AFAIK.

(I'm aware that these Stringbags most likely had radar, which wasn't installed untill '43. I'm not trying to prove they can sink submarines in a ASW role, I'm proving they can be used at night or during bad weather just nicely.)

Well as I said, baffeld. But proven wrong. Carriers can be used in Barents sea during winter. The only question is if UK and France is going to do it 39.

The SU will probably take more of a beating than IRL, but OTOH they're the one and only side which can still afford it at that time; all Stalin has to do is wait and the Allies won't be able to increase troops, most likely as spring/summer approaches the Allies will have to move troops away, back to the Continent for the anticipated German attack.

Stalin doesn't have another major front (yet), the Allies do.

Stalin could have wait OTL and grabed all of finland as Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact said. Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg

He didn't, and thats important to rememver wiht an Allied intervention. The question is if Stalin (him self) could afford SU losing against the Allies (or as Pravda would say: the capitalist imperalist forces of the world). What would his fears bee if he lost Leningrad to the Allies? A new Tsarist white army and a new counter revolutionary civil war? Its his fears that are important. Its the paranoia that lead to the purges.

Another fear is Germany suing for peace when the Swedish Iron is blokaded from shipping. Germany havent pulld the blitz in France yet so there is a lot of feelings of WWI going around. An intervention during the ongoing Sitzkrieg is also a proof that the "capitalist and imperalist forces" are more intrested in fighting SU than each other.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Well as I said, baffeld. But proven wrong. Carriers can be used in Barents sea during winter. The only question is if UK and France is going to do it 39.

Although I wouldn't want to be a carrier pilot making a night landing (not even today) it was possible during WWII. Unfortunately it's one of the myths around WWII that just won't die.

There's nothing stopping the British from blockading the SU. But as I mentioned earlier it won't be a very effective blockade as the SU isn't dependant on foreign imports and in this timeline there won't be heaps of Allied help for the SU.
The Allies will make sure the Soviet Navy stationed in Murmansk is powerless, so there will be some naval forces stationed there.

Stalin could have wait OTL and grabed all of finland as Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact said. Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg

He didn't, and thats important to rememver wiht an Allied intervention. The question is if Stalin (him self) could afford SU losing against the Allies (or as Pravda would say: the capitalist imperalist forces of the world). What would his fears bee if he lost Leningrad to the Allies? A new Tsarist white army and a new counter revolutionary civil war? Its his fears that are important. Its the paranoia that lead to the purges.

Another fear is Germany suing for peace when the Swedish Iron is blokaded from shipping. Germany havent pulld the blitz in France yet so there is a lot of feelings of WWI going around. An intervention during the ongoing Sitzkrieg is also a proof that the "capitalist and imperalist forces" are more intrested in fighting SU than each other.

I doubt Stalin could lose St.-Petersburg.
A single corps of Allied infantry won't make that much difference. Also by the time the weather is good enough to attack those troops will need to be back on the continent.

 

[ResPublica]

Although I wouldn't want to be a carrier pilot making a night landing (not even today) it was possible during WWII. Unfortunately it's one of the myths around WWII that just won't die.

There's nothing stopping the British from blockading the SU. But as I mentioned earlier it won't be a very effective blockade as the SU isn't dependant on foreign imports and in this timeline there won't be heaps of Allied help for the SU.
The Allies will make sure the Soviet Navy stationed in Murmansk is powerless, so there will be some naval forces stationed there.

I agree whit you, nothing much up there to gain except a larger port that is connected to a important Railway. But nothing much else to fight about.

I doubt Stalin could lose St.-Petersburg.
A single corps of Allied infantry won't make that much difference. Also by the time the weather is good enough to attack those troops will need to be back on the continent.

I doubt it to, but the fear is something else. And why not fight a winter campaign? The Finns do it, the Red Army is trying it so why not the Allies? And are 3 divisions that important for the front on the continent? It’s a symbolic force. And if Stalin ask for peace late January 1940 instead of Finland asking late February the troops is home by May and the IOTL German offensive on France.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I agree whit you, nothing much up there to gain except a larger port that is connected to a important Railway. But nothing much else to fight about.

Yes, a complete drain of troops. Isolated and at the mercy of the Soviets assembling a larger force. Something the Soviets managed to do in the Far East around the same time, with equal logistical problems.

The Allies aren't going to attack either St.-Petersburg or Murmansk during winter. At most they'll isolate Murmansk/Archangelsk without occupying it if they're wise. No troops necessary, just some light naval forces. Wouldn't it be more logical to see more support on the Finnish side from the Allies?
The French have bucketloads of artillery they can supply the Finns with.

I doubt it to, but the fear is something else. And why not fight a winter campaign? The Finns do it, the Red Army is trying it so why not the Allies? And are 3 divisions that important for the front on the continent? It’s a symbolic force. And if Stalin ask for peace late January 1940 instead of Finland asking late February the troops is home by May and the IOTL German offensive on France.

Why open up another can of worms? Isn't fighting Germany enough?

Still, such a force would have a nice effect while fighting alongside the Finns. It could free up enough Finnish troops, destroying more of those motti's the Finns IRL didn't have the manpower to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salients,_re-entrants_and_pockets#Motti

 

[chris N]

It needs to be recalled that there were a number of reasons for intervention in Finland: 1) public opinion in Great Britain and France favored the Finns (in addition the italian and Hungarians were also volunteering to fight the soviets so this could undermine the alliance between Italy and Germany as well as to bring the Hungarians into the allied orbit) and 2) the Soviet Union was regarded as an ally of Nazi Germany. Thus attacks on the soviet union would help to rduce the soviets capacity to suppy the germans with war matterials.
While it might not be possible for the allies to attack Leningrad they really could cause massive loses to the Red Army. I really believe that if the allies had intervened there would have been a lot more aircraft sent. Thus the Raf might have been bombing Russia knocking out the rail lines.

 

[ResPublica]

The Allies aren't going to attack either St.-Petersburg or Murmansk during winter. At most they'll isolate Murmansk/Archangelsk without occupying it if they're wise. No troops necessary, just some light naval forces. Wouldn't it be more logical to see more support on the Finnish side from the Allies?
The French have bucketloads of artillery they can supply the Finns with. Still, such a force would have a nice effect while fighting alongside the Finns. It could free up enough Finnish troops, destroying more of those motti's the Finns IRL didn't have the manpower to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salients,_re-entrants_and_pockets#Motti

Suomussalmi battle: 11 000 Finns defeats 50 000 Soviets whit one dead Finnish soldier per 28 dead Soviet solders. I know the effectiveness of the motti, it’s in the elementary school in Sweden.

Finland had 250 000 men against one million, ten thousand men would improve the odds, fifty thousand would change it. The total death toll in the war were 26 662 Finnish and 126 875 soviet, 39 886 wounded Finns and 264 908 wounded Russians. One wounded Russian for every Finnish solder and five dead Russians for every dead Finn. It’s crushing.

Finland had 30 tanks and 130 airplanes at the outbreak of the war, outdated artillery and almost no trucks. Everything Finland can get is going to make those numbers even grimmer for Soviet and Stalin.

Why open up another can of worms? Isn't fighting Germany enough?

2) the Soviet Union was regarded as an ally of Nazi Germany. Thus attacks on the soviet union would help to rduce the soviets capacity to suppy the germans with war matterials.
While it might not be possible for the allies to attack Leningrad they really could cause massive loses to the Red Army. I really believe that if the allies had intervened there would have been a lot more aircraft sent. Thus the Raf might have been bombing Russia knocking out the rail lines.

The war started because Soviet wanted land concessions of Finland to protect Leningrad. If I were Stalin I would be very afraid, after seeing these numbers, to carry this fight into the spring when allied troops could advance on Leningrad.

 

[chris N]

Let me say that the western allied intervention force of 50,000 would include a lot of equipment that was unavailable to the Finnish army, inculing heavy mobile artillery,tanks and At weapons. I would also quess that if it made it to Finland that there would be RAF combat aircraft atttached as well as other allied aircraft. If the war continued into the spring then the soviets would be struck by both RAF and FAA aircraft. In addition the Hungarian and Italian and US volunteers would all have arrived and have joined the Finnish army. Stalin might very well find that his invasion of Finland resulted in him having a very angry tiger by the tail.
Allied attack on Soviet oil field and raillines could seriously damage the soviet economy.

 

[ResPublica]

Let me say that the western allied intervention force of 50,000 would include a lot of equipment that was unavailable to the Finnish army, inculing heavy mobile artillery,tanks and At weapons. I would also quess that if it made it to Finland that there would be RAF combat aircraft atttached as well as other allied aircraft. If the war continued into the spring then the soviets would be struck by both RAF and FAA aircraft. In addition the Hungarian and Italian and US volunteers would all have arrived and have joined the Finnish army. Stalin might very well find that his invasion of Finland resulted in him having a very angry tiger by the tail.
Allied attack on Soviet oil field and raillines could seriously damage the soviet economy.

More of a angry Lynx by the tail, whit the Lynx being more common around Finland than tigers. Do you propose to do a proper TL of this?

 

[Condottiero]

Would the presence of British officers affect to the tactics of the finns?

I mean, wouldn't we have something like, "you have defeated them for their incomptence not because of the motti tactics, in fact it has been in spite of the motti tactics, what you have to do is frontal engagement...".?

 

[arctic warrior]

Would the presence of British officers affect to the tactics of the finns?

I mean, wouldn't we have something like, "you have defeated them for their incomptence not because of the motti tactics, in fact it has been in spite of the motti tactics, what you have to do is frontal engagement...".?

Probably the Finns wouldn't listen to them (I sincerely hope) and their attitude towards the Germans in Finland during the Continuation War support my opinion.
Or they try it once and then continue in their victorious track.

 

[ResPublica]

Probably the Finns wouldn't listen to them (I sincerely hope) and their attitude towards the Germans in Finland during the Continuation War support my opinion.
Or they try it once and then continue in their victorious track.

The Finns would ignore them. They know the terain and know how to fight in the Winter. The motti tactics is also something used in the civil war.

 

[chris N]

To begin with I'm not sure that they British would be telling the Finns how to fight depending upon who was the commander of the British forces. I think that the French and Poles would be more likely to be willing to listen to whatever might do the best to win. The British could however, offer the Finns advice on how to use their artillery and airpower so that it would achive the most impact.
As for doing a time line on this I am in the process of thinking this out and would welcome any imput.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

To begin with I'm not sure that they British would be telling the Finns how to fight depending upon who was the commander of the British forces. I think that the French and Poles would be more likely to be willing to listen to whatever might do the best to win. The British could however, offer the Finns advice on how to use their artillery and airpower so that it would achive the most impact.
As for doing a time line on this I am in the process of thinking this out and would welcome any imput.

Didn't the OP suggested a corps of 3 divisions to be sent?
That's not enough to warrant full control over the Finnish Army or something like that. I think you are right about the Finns being able to learn much from a major power regarding a lot of things.

I still think the Allies wouldn't send that much forces even. Still supplies, artillery, ammunitions etc + a small troop contingent would do wonders for the Finns. Also it'd have a nice effect on Finnish morale to be supported by other nations.
If anything any arriving Allied troops could be used to free up Finnish troops for offensive operations.
Any RAF units sent would probably have dramatic effects.

I also think this will have the effect that the SU uses a larger part of it's military. After all they're now in a major war, instead of a minor war with a pesky neighbour.

 

[DrakonFin]

I think you are right about the Finns being able to learn much from a major power regarding a lot of things.

They had done that all through the 20s and the 30s, because the Finnish Army was designed and built for a big part by former German officers of the Reichswehr and a major contingent of the Finnish operational leadership had been trained in Germany (this includes, but is not limited to, the "Jäger" cadre). The co-operation between Finland and Germany was extensive. I guess my point is that there was quality training and experience present and already used in Finland, adapted to local conditions. Ten or even five years before British help would have certainly had a major influence, but I am at a loss to see anything major the Finnish military leadership could have learned from the British at this point. Anyway, most things we see as the British forte, such as naval warfare, did not necessarily apply to the Finnish situation at hand.

I still think the Allies wouldn't send that much forces even. Still supplies, artillery, ammunitions etc + a small troop contingent would do wonders for the Finns. Also it'd have a nice effect on Finnish morale to be supported by other nations. If anything any arriving Allied troops could be used to free up Finnish troops for offensive operations. Any RAF units sent would probably have dramatic effects.

I also think this will have the effect that the SU uses a larger part of it's military. After all they're now in a major war, instead of a minor war with a pesky neighbour.

Like I wrote earlier, I think it is quite unlikely Stalin would go as far as wage a protracted war against the Western Allies over Finland. Finland was a minor concern that could be taken care of later, not enough to warrant war with Britain. IMO the Anglo-French intervention would have brought the war to a halt before any allied contingent, save aerial, could have time to make it to the front at Karelia. What you are discussing here is interesting, but verging on the ASB territory.

 

[arctic warrior]

To begin with I'm not sure that they British would be telling the Finns how to fight depending upon who was the commander of the British forces. I think that the French and Poles would be more likely to be willing to listen to whatever might do the best to win. The British could however, offer the Finns advice on how to use their artillery and airpower so that it would achive the most impact.
As for doing a time line on this I am in the process of thinking this out and would welcome any imput.

I wouldn't be too surprised if the Brits would tell the Finns how to run their army. They would feel superior to the little guys.
Remember that old joke of the US Navy meeting the RN at sea:
US Admiral: ahoy, there the worlds second large fleet!
RN Admiral: ahoy, there the worlds second best fleet!!

But the Finns would at this time built on at least one perhaps two months successfull fighting the Red Army - they would just shake their heads and continue the proven path.

But of course they would accept any reinforcements!