Anti-tank!

This is coolbert:

From Professor Al Nofi StrategyPage CIC # 413 we have this entry:

"•The 'Winter War' with Finland in 1939-1940 cost the Red Army about 2,400 armored vehicles, or roughly 23 a day, against an enemy who possessed no armor whatsoever and only primitive anti-tank weapons."

That Winter War of course the border dispute between Finland and the Soviet Union. The latter prevailing but at prodigious cost, including manpower and material both.

As stated by Professor Al, the Finn not possessing either armor [tanks and armored cars] or anti-tank weaponry. The Soviet in contrast having an abundance of armor almost overwhelming in nature AND used in a profligate manner.

Armor in the sense of BOTH tanks and armored cars available to the Soviet, countered with primitive and expedient ad hoc weaponry and tactics of the Finn most effective.

It should be noted that some Finnish leaders had made the correct observations of anti-tank tactics of the man-a-foot from the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists when confronted by Soviet tanks crewed by Soviets able to resist armor even lacking the proper weaponry.

Sir John Keegan rating the Finnish soldiers as the BEST OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR!!

Finnish troops not so much braver than any other troop but able to PERFORM TEAM TASKS BETTER!

Dupuy of the opinion that three factors needed for success on the battlefield:

* Officers are more dynamic and aggressive.
* Weapons, tactics and doctrine are more suited to the conditions.
* Troops PERFORM TEAM TASKS BETTER.

Soldiers as contrasted to warriors the former:

* Acting according to a plan.
* Fighting as a team.
* Comporting themselves to discipline.

That ad hoc anti-tank weaponry as employed by the Finn including sticky bombs, gasoline bombs, not much than that and a whole lot of sisu [guts and determination in the face of adversity]!

Finland ONLY a nation-state as that term understood for twenty years prior to 1939, I might assume too that Finnish soldier having high morale, esprit, and motivation.

That observation of Sir John is right on the money? I would venture it is so!

coolbert.