Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...demanded that the Finns cede parts of Finland that have a large Russian-speaking population?

What is the armament of the modern SA?

Does Finland have a modern-day version of the Mannerheim Line?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,380 Posts
http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Finnish_Army

Fortunately for your hypothetical, Finland already ceded one-third of national territory in 1940 and confirmed it in 1944 and 1947. There is no large Russian-speaking population in Finland apart from businessmen and tourists and so on. The Crimea has long been the base of the Black Sea fleet, and the native Tartars were dispossed and forcibly transported to Siberia by Stalin to complete centuries of "Russification." The Ukraine only had the Crimea since 1954 as a "gift" from Nikita Krhuschev...

Russian leaders pretty much showed their hand during the whole South Ossetian and Georgian war not too long ago: "Move toward the west in a region with oil and other resources, and we'll find and or create a bunch of 'separatists' to support... Like Abkhazians and Ossetians and so on... Or ethnic Russians."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
Does Finland have a modern-day version of the Mannerheim Line?


Our equipment is in many ways far from "lots of everything and high tech for everyone". Technically FDF is nothing like the US Army or the USMC.

But doctrine-vise the Finnish Army is not antique. We do not have antique combat doctrine i.e. line defence etc. So no "Mannerheim line" or anything that sort of "doctrine of days gone by".

At the moment FDF doctrine is being reformed and refined to be more effective and suitable for a smaller force. The "combat doctrine 2015" is concentrated on small mobile units operating on large areas i.e. local and areal troops. Then there are the heavy hitting operational forces (tanks, mechanized infantry) that are to deliver the big punch.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Would the Finns fight against another invasion?
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member
Joined
·
9,096 Posts
Do we give back Kalifornia, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico in a few years if they want to leave? After all, Mexico once owned them all and might like them back. My California county already has more Spanish speakers than English speakers, but so far they seem quite happy here, so the issue hasn't come up. Yet. "Remember the Alamo" doesn't have much ring to it in East LA!

Russia once laid claim to part of the Northern CA coast via Fort Ross, which was, of course, Fort Rus until the Cold War. Maybe Putin would like it back as well. Couldn't be too much worse than California's current administration...

Of course, Alaska once belonged to Russia and they sure sold it way too cheap to old Seward - cancel that deal! "I can see Russia from my house."

We bought the Virgin Islands from the Dutch some years back, also a bad deal for them. Dutch gunboats on the horizon?

Puerto Rico got grabbed from Spain in gunboat diplomacy- maybe we'll give that back if they ask politely, no troops required.

As for those "Sandwich Islands", Lord Sandwich's heirs could enjoy a nice beachfront house with a view in Kona if Britain just invades to take 'em it back.

We haven't even gotten to Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase - better look out for the French claiming that one back - obviously they got took on that one, the worst real estate deal in history.

And certainly the Queen might want those cranky American colonies back, even though they did more or less vote to be independent in very questionable elections without international UN observers...

Quite a lot of our real estate has changed hands in history. Haven't even gotten to Guam, the Canal Zone or the US invasion of Canada in the War of 1812...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
Would the Finns fight against another invasion?
Yes. Why not?





The results of resistance? Hard to say in the end.



// disclaimer- semi off topic

Content not ment to be political...


Though I prefer not to fight all alone. In my opinion we should have joined Nato already long ago. Then there would be no potential - if quite small - thread from Russia. If I had to choose between two imperialistic countries - no offence ment American brothers - it is not a hard choice. Bare with me, I mean no harm with this. But I think you agree with me that the USA has been and is an imperialistic country. All major powers are. But at least you have good and sound ideals. Even if often only on paper, but still. You can not argue with freedom and democracy. What has Russia to offer? Dark ages, failing economy and broken imaginary "super power". Nothing more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,929 Posts
I jut hope we don't have to see this hypothetical happen in Estonia next. Finland is safe - for now I think.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member
Joined
·
9,096 Posts
As a resident Kalifornian, I think Mexico has already won!

QUOTE=martin08;2921779]If we can keep Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.





(and before I get the two-dozen flaming PM's, I'm kidding!)[/QUOTE]
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I just heard news reports that the Russians have invaded the Jersey Shore to protect the large population of Russian speakers there.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,071 Posts
Khm-khm... Shouldn't this discussion be held elsewhere - in the Current Events or in the Mine Field, for example?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,929 Posts
"Though I prefer not to fight all alone. In my opinion we should have joined Nato already long ago. Then there would be no potential - if quite small - thread from Russia. If I had to choose between two imperialistic countries - no offence ment American brothers - it is not a hard choice. Bare with me, I mean no harm with this. But I think you agree with me that the USA has been and is an imperialistic country. All major powers are. But at least you have good and sound ideals. Even if often only on paper, but still. You can not argue with freedom and democracy. What has Russia to offer? Dark ages, failing economy and broken imaginary "super power". Nothing more."

I can live with that analysis. Especially if by Imperialistic you mean it in the classical sense. We don't conquer and hold nations as serfs like the Russians have done. But we do influence and sometimes try to dictate terms to other nations. At one time I would have greatly been offended by the remarks. Now I just take them for what they are meant to be.

Oh and please guys. Definitely hold onto NM, AZ, and TX. No chance that Mexico wants California anyway. That state is too much in debt.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Bugelson, unless Finland has been invaded by our notoriously bad American food and our overpriced and overhype coffee shops, then we have been imperialistic....yet.

But if nearly every intersection in Finland suddenly sprouts a CVS pharmacy, a bank, a strip shopping center (composed of a donut shop, a non-English speaking dry cleaners, and a nail salon), and a gas station, then you have in fact been invaded by the US.

But don't worry. We tend to be overweight (easy to fight), too loud (easy to hear coming), and way too intrusive (What do you do for a living?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
Russia has always had the strategy of invading and conquering, then to reduce chances of future revolutions by displacing many of original ethnic peoples to other Russian lands (AKA Siberia) and replacing them with Russians. (same tactic as England did in Northern Ireland, many Irish Catholics displaced out beyond the pale, Scottish Protestants brought in.

So now, Russia is using the old standby alibi of only protecting ethnic Russians in former Soviet occupied countries to provide fig leaf cover for their invasions.

Maybe Finland should invade to take back their former eastern provinces taken by the Soviets. /s ( in the past have caught flac over /s, so will elaborate. To indicate irony or sarcasm, a single /s is placed at the end of a comment)
 

·
Site Contributor
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
Yes. Why not?
+1 The answer to this is so obvious that the Finns do not even bother asking it.

There is a questionaire made regularly to keep track the attitudes of Finnish population about defence policy, budjet of Finnish military, conscript service etc. The essensial question for testing this very this exact thing in it goes like this:
"Jos Suomeen hyökätään, niin tulisiko Suomen ja suomalaisen mielestänne puolustauduttava aseellisesti kaikissa tilanteissa, vaikka tulos näyttäisi epävarmalta?" which translates as "If Finland is attacked, should Finland and the Finns defend themselves militarily at all situations, even if the outcome would appear uncertain?"
The latest results (December of 2013) are: 71 % YES, 25 % NO.

The next question after that is "Olisitteko itse valmis osallistumaan maanpuolustuksen eri tehtäviin kykyjenne ja taitojenne mukaan?", which translates as "Would you be willing to personally take part in various tasks of defending the country with your best ability and skill?". Latest results: 85% YES, 12 % NO.

Lucky for us, the 1st one of the questions that started this thread is flawed. There is no geographic area in Finland, which would have a concentration of Russian ethnic minority - with possible exception of one or two neighborhoods in eastern Helsinki. ;)

As Bugelson noted Finnish Defence Forces are not operating in the same budget level as US military - our defence spending is at the moment very modest 1.5% of state budget. But then our military is very different from US military to begin with. For one thing we have universal conscript service for male population + voluntary military service for women, which is used to train large number of soldiers to reserve. This system also has remained popular among Finns. Wartime Finnish military is based to these large trained reserves. Compared to most European countries we still have are very large wartime military forces - 350,000 men. And if needed we could probably boost that up, since we already have existing trained reserves - hence doing that would only require refreshment training and some new equipment. To give some idea about the background situation - in 1980's we used to have wartime Armed Forces of 750,000 men. When it comes to number of field artillery pieces we also have one of the most powerful field artilleries remaining in Europe.

Military equipment we are using is mix of modern and old plus by many standards Finnish military remains quite lightly armed. Our Air Force operates F-18 C/D fighter aircraft with latest modernisation packages, but we have less than 60 of them. We have up to date anti-aircraft missile systems (NASAMS, SA-11, Crotale-NG, RBS-70 + Stingers were ordered recently to replace old SA-18 & SA-16) , modern anti-tank missiles (TOW, Spike-MR, NLAW) etc but these have been acquired in somewhat limited numbers. For example most common assault rifle model (7.62 RK 62) is from early 1960's and field artillery is almost completely equipped with towed artillery weapons. Latest acquisitions include Leopard 2A6 (in addition of existing Leopard 2A4), which is one of the most modern main battle tanks existing today, but we are only to get 100 of them.

The notable effect that has appeared from the recent events in Ukraine is that practically all Finnish political parties have declared that the days for making constant cutbacks to military budget are now over. Depending political party at least modest or even substantial increase of military budget have been suggested in near future. There have also been some public debate about re-considering the international Ottawa landmine ban, to which Finland joined in year 2011.

Jarkko
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,402 Posts
Yes. Why not?





The results of resistance? Hard to say in the end.



// disclaimer- semi off topic

Content not ment to be political...


Though I prefer not to fight all alone. In my opinion we should have joined Nato already long ago. Then there would be no potential - if quite small - thread from Russia. If I had to choose between two imperialistic countries - no offence ment American brothers - it is not a hard choice. Bare with me, I mean no harm with this. But I think you agree with me that the USA has been and is an imperialistic country. All major powers are. But at least you have good and sound ideals. Even if often only on paper, but still. You can not argue with freedom and democracy. What has Russia to offer? Dark ages, failing economy and broken imaginary "super power". Nothing more.


I bet you would have foreign volunteers that would come to your aid, although they might not speak Finnish. I worry about my relatives in Poland.


Keep in mind this year marks the 75th anniversary of WWII........1939. Would be ironic that Russia would try something in the west.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Mexico can have Kalifornia as far as I'm concerned. They can have DC and NY as well. Good riddance...

Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
13,898 Posts
Khm-khm... Shouldn't this discussion be held elsewhere - in the Current Events or in the Mine Field, for example?
I think we need a political discussion forum or something else. The minefield is not a real forum for the norm. If anyone thinks the world political situation or the US Gun laws do not influence our collecting, ammo, gun rights, etc. they should move to the Russian Federation.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top