Why are the finns so good at killing russians

Why are the finns so good at killing russians

Judging from how the war was run it's more accurate to say that Russians are good at killing Russians.

They're both mongols

That person in the picture isn't him though, that's a Swede.

simply a well organised deffence along a border with virtually no infrastructure and an invading army that is one of the only countries to lose a war against modern poland

Because they are more tolerant and progressive than bigoted russkies

this

Also they were later supported and equipped by Germans.

>used to being attacked by Russians every other decade for hundreds of years. This creates anger towards Russian culture so motivation to fight them is high
>Finns think highly of European values of freedom and liberty of both men and women so it's natural they fight with all they've got against an invading totalitarian state (Since the birth of Finnish nationalism in the 1800's, they've been trying to embrace the western values and get away from eastern influences)
>thousands of years of living in a frozen hell with zero resources other than gigantic forests, marshes and reindeer piss has made them excellent and tough soldiers who know their surroundings well
>having a very small populace forced the Finnish army to rely on quality wherever it could. The Finnish army was badly supplied, yes, but their generals were well trained, highly motivated cared for their men and were very innovative. The weapons they used were also of high quality
>the poor infastructure coupled with a harsh environment and swathes of completely empty territory makes the country a really hard place to invade and an ideal place for ambushes
>the Finnish army also used more combat drugs than most other nations because of their small population. This led to the Finnish soldiers being highly effective during most battles and being able to cope with exhaustion pretty well. After the war the high use of combat drugs naturally caused large problems

Well said man. Thanks

>>used to being attacked by Russians every other decade for hundreds of years.
Wut?

I'm not saying Simo wasn't an excellent marksman. Tests of his abilities after the war prove he was. But shooting at 1930s Russian conscripts is a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

yeah seems like more holes are being punched in his mythical nature, but you have to say that he was nothing short of indestructible, surviving sniper team,barrages and an anti tank rifle round

Despite having a 5th of the (supposed) sniper kills, I'm more impressed by the feats of Vietnam veteran Carlos Hathcock given the terrain and nature of the enemy he was fighting.
I want to be perfectly clear here; I am not knocking Häyhä one bit. He was a brave patriot who did an excellent job against an invading army. So maybe his enemy was easy to kill, fighting in terrain that made the killing easier still. And maybe his kills were far fewer than the number often given, but something tells me Häyhä didn't give a shit what the real number was or what was thought of him. He just enjoyed the good old fashioned Finnish pleasure of killing Russians, and who can fault him for that?

they were ukrainians

Literally, unironically the same thing.

Why would you need gay porn on your coffee

Because fuck commies

a slight exaggeration since Finland was part of the Tsarist Russia for a hundred or so years but it really was like that until the early 1800's

everyone's good at killing russians

I think its important not to understate how completely Finnish society came together to fight during the winter war. After ww1 there was a civil war in Finland similar to the one in Russia, except the whites won. The Soviets were counting on a fifth column of former reds to help them, but that help never materialized.

Compare that with the battle of France where nobody was willing to delay the German advance since they didn't care about their country and weren't willing to die to save it.

>their generals were well trained, highly motivated cared for their men and were very innovative. The weapons they used were also of high quality
during the winter war they certainly didn't help themselves, the lack of tanks and investment into cavalry particularly was a huge mistake. The kind of mobile fire support offered by just 50 more tanks would have made a massive difference.

Because communists can't do anything right.

>Compare that with the battle of France where nobody was willing to delay the German advance since they didn't care about their country and weren't willing to die to save it.
That is such fucking bullshit. Don't disgrace the efforts of the French First Army like that.

From what ive seen back then Finnish army equipment wasnt always bought because it was the best but because it was cheap and they could afford it. They kept using the same guns from WW1 too because it was the best, but because they had no budget to do anything but upgrade them.

Nah you're just american

then why was the german advance not delayed when they knew the exact number of tanks leading the column?