Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 689101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 356

Thread: Toughest Military Units of the past 300 years

  1. #226
    Senior Member Kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Garden of my Turbulence
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    The "war" between Germans and Fins was not very hotly fought, it started out downright phoney (both sides informing each other when they would "attack" and such) although there were some ugly scenes at the very end. Finland, like all of Germanys enemies, finally switched to the winning side. Be proud of it.
    Reminds me a bit of the many French or Dutch who joined the Resistance in the days after the German withdrawal.
    Better late than never, I suppose...

  2. #227
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1

    Default

    The "war" between Germans and Fins was not very hotly fought, it started out downright phoney (both sides informing each other when they would "attack" and such) although there were some ugly scenes at the very end. Finland, like all of Germanys enemies, finally switched to the winning side. Be proud of it.
    Reminds me a bit of the many French or Dutch who joined the Resistance in the days after the German withdrawal.
    Better late than never, I suppose...

    I gotta stick up for Finland here, hehe. They were pretty abused by all sides during WW2 and merely fought for survival and independence. They started off as Allies, Britain and USA selling them warplanes and other equipment. This being during the Winter War in 1939 when Russia was part of the Axis. Russia changed sides and joined the Allies ONLY after Hitler invaded Russia. Seizing upon that opportunity, Russia again invaded Finland to finish what they had started 2 years before. That's why the 2nd war with the Russians is called "The Continuation War". Finland was left totally alone at that point. When Finland started fighting back, and hard, and whipping the Russians (again), that got some of the Allies upset. Most noteably Churchill. He became obsessed with the outrage that Finland would actually fight for it's survival and independence and was already calling for no less than a brutal and unconditional surrender of Finland as far back as early 1943. The USA, on the other hand, was more cordial to Finland. They actually sent a peace delegation to Moscow to hammer out a peace treaty between Russia and Finland so that they could bring Finland back into the Alliance, stop Finland and Russia's distraction, and focus on wiping out Hitler. Moscow proposed a brutal set of terms to the American delegation, the Finns never got the chance to decline it. The Americans declined it on behalf of the Finns because they said it was too excessive. Eventually after months of negotiations, the USA had to conceded that they would never be able to get Russia to lessen it's treaty conditions and gave up in futility. All the while, Churchill is still thinking of Finland as being as bad, if not worse, than Hitler. I'll never figure out why he was so passionate about punishing Finland. So he's still calling for their complete and unconditional surrender, which dragged out the Continuation War for another full year. Unbelievably, and possibly due to the American pressure, Stalin reverses course and actually says that Finland has put up such a heroic fight for it's very survival, that he didn't see a need to impose unconditional surrender terms. Course, at that time, Leningrad near the border with Finland was still under seige. Speaking of which, Finland never made a point to invade Russia, even tho they could easily have done so. Perhaps that changed Stalins mind. As soon as Finland advanced to the 1939 borders, they stopped. And even tho they had a bit of a relationship with Germany during this time, they told the Germans that the Leningrad seige was all on them, that they wouldn't interfere with it. However, Finland did say that if Germany did take Leningrad and were able to prove that they could completely defeat Russia, then they would consider any proposals to drive into the heartland with them. But it never came to them even having to make such a decision.

    In the end, Finland finally had to accept tough peace terms when the Allies and Russia were able to finally able to lift the seige of Leningrad, thereby putting Finland square in the bullseye of all-out allied fury. If Russia had pushed for another major invasion at that point, the British and Americans would have been forced to go in with them. Not to mention the fact that it could have seriously prolonged the war with another huge distraction, simply because Russia wanted a bigger buffer between the Finland border and Leningrad. Eventually, with the writing on the wall, the Finns had to accept the conditions or keep fighting much longer and possibly against all the Allies. Finland didn't have any beef with the Allies at all. Russia, as I pointed out, was never originally part of the Alliance. British had trained alot of the Finn pilots also. Peace conditions I'd have to research to be totally accurate, but was roughly the post Winter War borders, Finland having to agree to only ever have a 58,000 man total military, ceding almost all their entire navy, sweep mines/barriers from Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea areas and lots of other "reparations".

    That leads to the one big condition. The Lapland War. As part of the peace treaty, Finland had to make war upon the Germans. They had lended/leased some of their bases to the Germans. So now they had to fight them and kick them out. As well as help fight out the rest of the war. And yeah, early on in that, Finland basically told the Germans if they immediately set about leaving, they would take it easy on them. But in the end, the Germans had operational plans in place for the peace between Russia and Finland. So Germany, in some areas of Finland, then went on the offensive and were gonna make Finland pay. And though the fighting probably wasn't as brutal as the war with the Russians, it was war nonetheless. And there wasn't any of this "we're coming to attack you" stuff, as you say, once German went on the offensive against the Finns. Thankfully, German was getting put on the ropes and couldn't afford a prolonged war with Finland cause they were getting their clocked cleaned in France and on the Eastern Front after D-Day and the Allied juggernaut of dominance got rolling along.

    All in all, Finland just wanted to be independent and a democracy. They wouldn't have had that under the Russians. And with Russia changing sides, then using that as an excuse to attack Finland a 2nd time and try to draw in the USA and Britain, what do you expect Finland to do? Lay down and surrender? Hell no, they did what any reasonable human beings would do. They fought for their freedom. And they are/were the only country who fought against Russia, who remained free after WW2. All the others ended up being swallowed by the infamous "Soviet Union".

    I hold the Finns in high regard for their strong will and determination. Their passion for freedom and self determination. Their brilliant military tactics and innovations. They were just doing what they had to do to survive, any other government/leader like that would have done the same I'm sure.

    The fact that the Finns had to beg, borrow or steal what military equipment they could get their hands on, most of which was useless or outdated, and then used it to embarass a military no less than 10x what they were and soundly whip them every time out, speaks volumes. I mean, the Finns were whipping ass with BIPLANES early on. You'd have to give them some votes for sure. Outgunned, outmanned and outclassed technologically, yet still managed to reel off victory after victory.

  3. #228
    Senior Member Kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Garden of my Turbulence
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    @Destin:

    You are quite right, buddy. But I simply could not resist to fire a dart after a certain arrogant remark from the Finnish corner.

  4. #229
    The Professor Lokos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    when Russia was part of the Axis.
    The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis.

    Russia changed sides and joined the Allies ONLY after Hitler invaded Russia.
    The Soviet Union was its own side. Stalin actively planned for general war with Germany in 1942, when the RKKA would complete its reformative processes. He had also offered to go to war in 1938, when Czechoslovakia was dismembered - which the Western Allies refused. There was no 'friendship' between the GGR and the USSR.

    When Finland started fighting back, and hard, and whipping the Russians (again)
    Considering the flow of the general war, the subsequent draining of Soviet units for the 'Front' from the Finnish border, the Finnish rearmament and greater mobilization, it is hardly surprising that Finland achieved successes.

    Speaking of which, Finland never made a point to invade Russia, even tho they could easily have done so.
    No, not really. Don't confuse Soviet unwillingness to make an issue of reoccupying territories lost in the first days and weeks of the War on the Finnish Front for the incapability to beat off some hypothetical Finnish offensive - an offensive that would tear the heart out of Finnish manpower in one fell swoop, in any case.

    Perhaps that changed Stalins mind.
    About as unlikely as it gets.

    thereby putting Finland square in the bullseye of all-out allied fury
    What you mean to say is 'Soviet fury'. The Soviet government wouldn't have allowed any WA presence in that conflict, in any case.

    Russia had pushed for another major invasion at that point, the British and Americans would have been forced to go in with them.
    No, no they wouldn't have. In fact, the Soviets would have insisted the opposite.

    Not to mention the fact that it could have seriously prolonged the war
    Considering that the Soviets broke through the Finnish lines in 1944 on the second day of the offensive; hardly.

    and try to draw in the USA and Britain
    Nope.

    All the others ended up being swallowed by the infamous "Soviet Union".
    Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were not. Nor was the DDR. WP members they may have been, but independent they were, too.

    and then used it to embarass a military no less than 10x what they were and soundly whip them every time out, speaks volumes.
    Someone's been perusing the liquor cabinet, I see.

    Lokos

  5. #230
    Member keimo lantio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somewhere up North, where you would freeze your balls off
    Posts
    207

    Default

    "Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were not. Nor was the DDR. WP members they may have been, but independent they were, too."

    Word "swallowed" can be understod differently, however those countries became satellite countries of USSR, so there is not big difference.

    Lot of Soviet divisions were surroundered and destroyed which was not the case in Finnish side. One has to remember that the terrain even out the overwhelming material superiority of Soviets and Finnish troops were better trained for "forest" fighting.

    At the end of the war Soviets lauched massive operation with more trained and battle hardened troops and gained success with heavy causualties. The men and material which was brought to theatre was simply too much for small Finnish army. However, we maintained our independency, compared to those satellite countries.

    I don't even want to think what would happened to Finland if the war would have been lost.

  6. #231
    The Professor Lokos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    At the end of the war Soviets lauched massive operation with more trained and battle hardened troops and gained success with heavy causualties.
    Since the Finnish line broke on the 2nd day, what kind of casualties are you thinking they suffered?

    Lokos

  7. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokos
    Since the Finnish line broke on the 2nd day, what kind of casualties are you thinking they suffered?

    Lokos

    Heavy, but the defencelines at Kannas were plenty, and it was quite easy to retreat to the others. Also Finland used its few tanks with men as "a breakbuster", if you know what i mean. Where ever there was a break, they counter-attacked.

  8. #233

    Default

    Here are some which might not have been mentioned.

    19th century:
    French Zouaves. Or where do you think US Civil War Zouaves got their inspiration from?

    20th century:
    French Colonial Paratroopers of the French Indochina war, 1946-54.

    Viet Cong, Viet Minh, NVA, Charlie, or whatever they were named.

    Algerian and Morroccan Tirailleurs, and Moroccan Goums of the Italian Campaign 1944.

  9. #234
    Member keimo lantio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somewhere up North, where you would freeze your balls off
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokos
    Since the Finnish line broke on the 2nd day, what kind of casualties are you thinking they suffered?

    Lokos
    Are really asking that, since answer is very simple? Of course Finns suffered heavy losses against overwhelming force.

  10. #235

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by fingon
    Heavy, but the defencelines at Kannas were plenty, and it was quite easy to retreat to the others. Also Finland used its few tanks with men as "a breakbuster", if you know what i mean. Where ever there was a break, they counter-attacked.
    This doesn't have much to do with this thread, but my grandfather fought at Kannas and lived to tell about it.

    My vote also goes for the Finns.

  11. #236
    The Professor Lokos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    Are really asking that, since answer is very simple? Of course Finns suffered heavy losses against overwhelming force.
    The question was hypothetical. 'Heavy casualties' is all very relative. In absolute terms, you're quite right, many were hurt or killed. In proportion to the overall Soviet force, though, the casualties were quite light for an operation of that size and scope.

    Lokos

  12. #237
    Member keimo lantio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somewhere up North, where you would freeze your balls off
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokos
    The question was hypothetical. 'Heavy casualties' is all very relative. In absolute terms, you're quite right, many were hurt or killed. In proportion to the overall Soviet force, though, the casualties were quite light for an operation of that size and scope.

    Lokos
    But that initial attack was stopped and after the unsuccesful battle of Tali-Ihantala Soviets decided to cease larger scale manouvres. That Tali-Ihantala battle was on of the heaviest artillery battles in the WWII. After Finns received much needed anti-tank weapons from Germany, they managed to stop the Soviet attack. Before that, ir was pretty risky business to try demobilize tank with log of wood or with molotov cocktail. Antitank weapons were nice tools for AT-men who used to run next to a tank, when now they could destroy them from distance. Peace of cake, they said...

    In Tali -Ihantala Finns lost 8841 men and Soviets aroun 21000 and 400-500 tanks and ~140 planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

    Never under estimate the Soviet leaders willingness and ability to sustain human sacrifice, someone said some time ago
    Last edited by keimo lantio; 12-06-2005 at 04:27 AM.

  13. #238
    Juvenile member - stupid comments a speciality Ea$y-8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaz
    I'm honestly amazed that no one has yet mentioned the 1st Marine Division (USMC) and the 41st Independent Commando unit (Royal Marines) during the Chosin Reservoir campaign in 1950. I'm almost certain there were also attached units from the US Army but I'm afraid I don't know who they were.
    Task Force Faith which was built up of elements of the US 7th Infantry Division.

  14. #239
    Hot Biker Dude of Death Royal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    'round and about...
    Posts
    7,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wiking
    Mine goes to the British redcoats in the napoleonic war.
    And Napoleon's Imperial Guard. Buggers lost once didn't they, British infantry at waterloo. Before that they beat just about everything that was unlucky enough to get in their way. (If i'm wrong, tell me so, don't shout and scream and curse I'm getting good at predicting these things.)
    The reatreat from Moscow anyone?

    Oh and it was Four One (Independent) Commando - no 'unit' at Chosin there were also (amongst the British troops there) elements of the SBS.

  15. #240
    Senior Member Para's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    That Green And Pleasant Land
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    When you read about the way the British fought with Marlborough breaking the French expasion dreams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •