So first lets look for tanks, as finland is a interesting case when it comes to tank as they used both soviets and german tanks.
First of all we have BAF C
(Images contain swastica dont say didnt warn you )
BAF C was the Finnish designation for captured Soviet BA-10 and BA-10M. 13 were used in Finnish service. Panssaridivisioona used theirs in a command, signal, liaison and supplies transport role.
- T26B,C&E and vickers 6-ton
The 1933 model of of the T-26, referred to as a T-26B, was fitted with a cylindrical turret and a large rear niche. By 1935, all models of this type were manufactured with welding, rather than riveting, and were mass produced to eventually become the most commong version of the T-26 encountered by the Union’s foes. Finland designated captured Model 1933 T-26 as T-26B. These tanks were the most common variant of the T-26 used the the Panssariprikaati (Tank Brigade). 20 were captured during the Winter War while 65 T-26B were captured during the Continuation War.
The 1938 model received a new, conical turret with a smaller cross-section, a slew of minor modifications to the hull design, and additional upgrades for the main gun and its optics. Finland designated captured Model 1938 T-26 as T-26C. These tanks used the the Panssariprikaati (Tank Brigade). 32 to 36 T-26C were used in Finnish service. These tanks were commonly issued to platoon and company leaders since the tanks were usually equipped with radios.
After the Winter War, Finland replaced the Armaments and turret of their remaining 26 Vickers 6-ton tanks with captured soviet equipment. The 37 mm tank gun M/36 Bofors was replaced by Soviet 45-mm tank guns to simplify supply lines of the Panssaridivisioona. The more reliable DT replaced the original M/09-31 (tank) machinegun. Soviet optics replaced the original optics even thought the Soviet optics has poorer visibility, they were better for estimating range. Also they could add Vickers 6-ton with 37 mm swedish gun and M/09-31 MG.
interest for multi-turret tanks had been sparked by Vickers A1E1 “Independent” heavy tank prototype, but only Soviet Union had deployed multi-turret tanks in active service. Two T-28 were captured in the Winter War. In the Continuation War, Finland captured five more. These tanks were originally used in the Heavy Tank platoon that which was expanded to Heavy Tank Company. When the Panssaridivisioona’s Panssariprikaati was created the Heavy Tank Company was split. 3rd Tank company of the 1st Battalion had three T-28. 6th Tank Company of 2nd Battalion gotten four T-28.
As far as I could research it seems that finland only captured 2 KV-1s the one with striped camo is KV-1 E (1940 model) and the other one with green camo being KV-1A(1942 model)
and yes thats a ISU-152 near KV-1A we gonna talk about it
- Sotka 76 and 85 (T34/76 AND T34/85)
First T-34 tank that Finnish troops took to their own use was captured 2nd of October 1941 near Syväri / Svir power plant, where at that day T-34 apparently made its first appearance en mass in Finnish - Soviet front. Following unsuccessful attack of four T-34 tanks, the Soviets launched another attempt with no less than 18 T-34 tanks. Due to earlier attack Finnish troops were prepared and waiting, so this second attack turned into disaster for the Soviets with Finnish troops knocking out five of the attacking tanks with satchel charges and antitank-mines. This first captured T-34 had been abandoned by its Soviet crew after getting stuck on two tree stumps, from which Finnish soldiers got rid of with a saw and little bit of explosives. This tank that Finnish Army registered as R-105 was factory-new STZ-manufactured T-34 model 1941 which was completely intact with only four shells missing from ammunition racks. Often this tank is also referred as “Heino’s T-34” after Private (later Staff Sergeant and Knight of Mannerheim Cross) Lauri Heino who drove it from the frontline when captured and served long as driver of this particular T-34. Also another T-34 had become stuck near the powerplant that day, but since it’s crew refused to leave the tank or surrender, Finnish infantry finally destroyed the tank by simply blowing it up, in the process damaging the vehicle beyond repair.
Finnish troops captured also second T-34 in autumn of 1941, but this tank registered as R-111, did not apparently enter into use of Tank Battalion until February or March of 1942. This T-34 model 1941 manufactured by KhPZ had still many features of T-34 model 1940, but had already been equipped with F-34 main gun. Third T-34 taken to Finnish use was T-34 model 1942 captured near Syväri / Svir power plant in spring of 1942. Finnish Army registered this Factory 183 build T-34 model 1942 as R-155. Forth T-34 medium tank taken to Finnish use was T-34 model 1941 captured near Lake Seesjärvi / Segozero in September of 1943 and was registered as Ps. 231-1. Finnish Army had introduced new marking system for identifying individual armoured vehicles in its use in spring of 1943, but this new Ps. number system did not completely replace earlier R-number system used for the same purpose until 1945. Finnish Army reserved Ps. 231 number for T-34/76 tanks. Since being captured in September of that year, Ps. 231-1 became the first T-34 named with Ps-number in 231-series. Earlier captured T-34 tanks were among the ones to receive also new Ps-numbers, but these were not used in wartime documentation. Seven T-34/76 tanks captured and used in the Continuation War.
When Soviet offensive in Finnish front begun in June 1944 Finnish Army found itself fighting against massive number of tanks - much of them T-34/85. First T-34/85 tanks taken to Finnish use were captured in Portinhoikka (part of Tali-Ihantala battlefield) 25th of June 1944 after counter-attack made that day , T34/85s were taken to Finnish use immediately after repainting them with Finnish nationality markings. Finnish Army took seven T-34/85 tanks to its own use, all of them were tanks captured in summer of 1944. When it came to Ps-number system, which Finnish Army use for identifying individual armoured vehicles, Ps. 245 was the number that was reserved for captured T-34/85 tanks. As noted the total number of T-34/85 tanks taken to Finnish use was seven. In addition of those seven tanks two more tanks were captured, one in Portinhoikka around 25th - 26th of June 1944 and another in Vuosalmi 31st of August 1944. Apparently these two additional tanks were included to inventory of armored vehicles, but never actually taken to Finnish use, even if at least the one captured in Vuosalmi (marked as “slightly burned”) even got its own Ps-number - Ps. 245-9.
- BT-42 “Christie”
BT-42 was Finnish Assault gun built from captured BT-7 light tanks and donated British 4.5-inch howitzers. These 4.5-inch howitzers were donated during the Winter War. 18 were made and used in Panssaridivisioona’s separate armored company as assault guns and indirect fire support.
- STU 40 G “Sturmi”
The Ausf. G was the final StuG III model produced from December 1942 onwards, boasting an improved superstructure design and the addition of side-mounted Schürzen for protection against anti-tank rifles and shaped charge weapons. Late G versions mounted the Topfblende pot mantlet, which provided increased protection for the gun, giving it the distinctive pig’s head (Saukopf) shape.
Assault Gun Battalion (Rynnäkkötykkipataljoona) received its first StuG IIIG assault guns in 2nd September 1943 with 30 delivered. Because of the the Karelian Isthmus Soviet offensive that started in 9th of June 1944 29 more StuG IIG were delivered. Since the normal machine gun were delivered with the Assault guns these were replaced by captured DT
- JSU 152(ISU-152)
Finland only captured two ISU-152. The both of them 25th of June 1944 near Portinhoikka crossroads during battles of Tali-Ihantala. The first one was lost four days later with a scratch crew. The second was converted into a recovery vehicle.
Advancing Finnish troops spotted T-50 tank first time already in July of 1941 and later that same year succeeded capturing one of these rare tanks near Äänislinna/Petrozavodsk. It was one of the fifty tanks manufactured by Voroshilov Factory number 174 in Leningrad. The tank was repaired and taken to use of Finnish Army with tank-registry number R-110 in February of 1942. It was first issued to Heavy Tank Company (Raskas Panssarikomppania ) of Tank Battalion, but as part of process expanding Tank Battalion to Tank Brigade it was transferred to 3rd Tank Company of Tank Brigade already in March of 1942. Later it was often used as command tank of the tank company. While the tank crew named their T-50 as “Niki”, also nickname for it soon appeared and ended up spreading far and wide. This popular nickname was “Pikku-Sotka” (Small Pochard), which referred to its physical resemblance with larger T-34 medium tank, which Finnish soldiers had already earlier nick-named as “Sotka” (Pochard) after a tugboat of that name. This Finnish-captured tank was equipped with 14-mm thick additional armour plates attached with bolts to front hull and turret sides.
finally it is needed to say all of the tanks above were used in Finlands only tank division Panssaridivisioona.
Now for weapons that could come in battle pass or a premium squad or an event squad
(use this image as a reference one)
Aimo Lahti got the task from finnish army to develop this semi-automatic rifle. The official order for this was made in October of 1934 and it took until autumn of 1936 before the first prototype was completed. The way Lahti’s designs were usually named, this first prototype was named as L-36. Finnish military proved less than enthusiastic when it came to this prototype - and for a good reason. With benefit of hindsight it is easy to see that the basic concept was well chosen - gas-action rifle with gas-piston. But unfortunately otherwise was rifle was far from practical military weapon. The biggest handicap was magazine, for which Lahti for some weird reason had selected Mannlicher-like design. In other words: The magazine was fixed (non-removable) and it was reloaded with cartridge clips, which were integral part of the magazine, which did not work without them. Somebody might claim that this not such a serious handicap - especially considering that American Garand M1 rifle had also rather similar kind of magazine arrangement and had no real issues. But unfortunately magazine used in automatic rifle L-36 had some notable differences to one used in Garand M1. For one thing the magazine capacity of L-36 was just 5 rounds. Even more serious problem was that it could not be loaded from the top, but instead Lahti had included front part of the magazine a hinge and switch for opening up the magazine for reloading. So, for reloading the soldier was supposed to turn the rifle upside down, open up the magazine, insert cartridge clip of 5 rounds, close magazine cover and arm the rifle by pulling back the lever on top of the rifle - not exactly easy or fast in middle of firefight. The T-shape lever used to arm the rifle was another problem - for some reason Lahti had located it on top of the rifle and made it awkward shape. The rifle also weight about 5 kg, although this might have not been too much of a problem if the rifle would have otherwise been practical and suitable for combat use. Unfortunately L-36 was neither and if compared to its obvious what-if contemporary rival,Soviet AVS-36 select-fire rifle (which weight 4.3-kg and had normal 15-round removable box magazine), it obviously loses on paper. L-36 prototype was not all bad - at least it seems to have been relatively easy to disassemble for basic maintenance. The whole rifle broke to two main parts, one of which contained lower receiver while the another one had upper receiver - and these two parts were locked to each other with single locking pin. Shortly said semi-automatic rifle L-36 was a far cry from effective combat weapon and the design had some serious weaknesses, which were so obvious that the weapon was not apparently even seriously tested. Other factors for this might have been estimated large manufacturing cost for which there was not funding available, lack of possible manufacturing capacity and the distrust towards gas-action weapons that seems to have been still pretty common among senior Finnish officers at the time.
Year 1939 Finnish military looked back to the almost forgotten automatic rifle project - and this time also funding needed for the matter would have been available. Aimo Lahti started developing improved rifle design based to his earlier L-36 prototype. The main improvement was replacing the old T-shaped arming lever with more typical kind of rifle bolt handle design, but also sights and bolt mechanism were improved. However it retained the inconvenient Mannlicher-type 5 round magazine. This improved automatic rifle named L-39 never got the possibility of success either. This was due to Finnish - Soviet Winter War, which started in November of 1939. With the war the rather limited Finnish armaments industry had its hands full and had no capacity needed of introducing new automatic rifle to production. Only one prototype of L-39 automatic rifle was ever manufactured. When Winter War ended March of 1940 Finnish military had chance of evaluating the recent experiences - and these did not look favourable to self-loading rifles. For one thing Suomi M/31 submachineguns had proved remarkably useful and effective, so this submachine gun appeared to be very good alternative for automatic rifles. Finnish troops had also captured thousands of Soviet AVS-36 and SVT-38 during Winter War, which covered immediate need for getting more automatic rifles. During interim peace 1940 - 1941 Finnish military tested these two captured automatic rifle models and decided to concentrate SVT-38 design, due to its better reliability and suitability to military use.
Finnish Pelo rifle
Pelo demonstrated his first semi-automatic rifle prototype already year 1933 by organising a grandiose test-firing event, to which he had invited no less than President of the Republic Svinhufvud, Marshal Mannerheim, Minister of Defence Arvi Oksala and some of the leading generals of Finnish Armed Forces. Pelo had privately ordered the manufacturing of his prototype from Sako, where he was working as technical manager at the time. The prototype presumably used long barrel recoil and it had been chambered to German 7.92 mm x 57 JS ammunition. The self-loading rifle designs that Pelo developed in 1930’s and early 1940’s seem all have been semiautomatic weapons, which were based to short barrel recoil and had rather small (5 round?) integral magazines. His prototypes were typically chambered to 7.92 mm x 57 JS or 6.5 mm x 55 calibre and since most of his prototypes were manufactured in Sweden they had certain parts (stock rings, trigger guards, bayonet attachments, shape of rifle stock), that either resembled the ones used in German and Swedish Mauser rifles or were recycled from them. Besides two exceptions all other automatic rifle prototypes that Pelo offered to Finnish military seem to have been privately manufactured for him. These two exceptions were two prototypes, which Ordnance Department ordered from VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas = State Rifle Factory) year 1941. Back then Finnish Army was testing semi-automatic rifles and Pelo had promised 7.62 mm x 54R calibre prototype of his rifle manufactured in Sweden for these tests already in January, but had failed to deliver them. Those two VKT-manufactured prototypes were tested in May of 1941 and further testing was intended, but ultimately decision was made to favour SVT-38 based prototypes.(we gonna talk about these SVT-38 prototypes)
Finland’s standard light machine gun going into the Winter War was the LS-26, a gun which did not succeed in field use. It was complex and cumbersome, and Finnish troops quickly replaced it with captured Russian DP-27 LMGs. Part of the problem of the LS-26 was it’s recoil-operated design. Finnish military authorities specified a recoil-operated mechanism for their LMG in light of the success of the recoil-operated heavy Maxim guns in Finnish service. Gas operation was quickly recognized as a superior system for light machine guns, but too late to stop adoption of the LS-26.
In the early 1930s, Aimo Lahti did design a gas-operated LMG, heavily influenced by the Czech ZB-26 system. A handful of prototypes were made by VKT, looking for both Finnish military acceptance and international sales. The gun was made in several calibers, most notably 7.62x54R for Finland and 7.92x57mm Mauser for export. However, bureaucratic issues prevented its consideration by the Finnish Army, and the timing was too late for exports. The L-34 was significantly lighter and simpler than the LS-26, and it was performed quite well in Finnish trials – which did not happen until the 1950s. By that time, the Finnish military was looking for an intermediate-caliber belt-fed gun, and the L-34 was not suitable regardless of its performance.
- Sampo L-41
By World War 2 also Finnish military had came to conclusion that the Maxim machineguns were both very heavy and structurally complicated. The heavy weight made using them in mobile operations difficult, as they were slow to move while the structural complicity increased their unreliability and made them more difficult to use. The machinegun that Aimo Lahti designed to replace old Maxim machineguns was L-41 “Sampo”. Roots of this weapon were in gas-action L-34 light machinegun (also called with the same nickname “Sampo”). Lahti had planned it already as general-purpose machinegun of sort - he had designed it suitable both as light machinegun for infantry and machinegunners machinegun for various aircraft. But since Finnish Army turned down L-34 light machinegun and requested belt-fed general-purpose machinegun (instead of magazine fed L-34) - that was what Lahti started to develop. This is visible in L-41 as it has similar bolt system that he had already used in L-34 light machinegun. He also did most of the planning for L-41 already at 1938, but getting the design to prototype-stage took time. Possibly the largest reason for this delay was related to ammunition that Finnish military was suing - designing reliable and belt-fed weapon that uses rimmed ammunition (such as 7.62 mm x 54R used by Finnish military) while keeping the weight reasonable is much more difficult than with weapons using non-rimmed ammunition. The feeding process for rimmed ammunition tends to be more complicated than for non-rimmed. Basically this is because rimmed ammunition usually needs to be first pulled off from belt before it can be fed to cartridge chamber while non-rimmed ammunition can be fed to cartridge chamber directly from ammunition belt.
- M/44 “pelti-kp”
Summer of 1943 Finnish troops noticed that the Soviets had new kind of submachine guns in their use and soon also succeeded capturing some. These new Soviet submachine guns had most of their parts made from stamped steel parts, which had been assembled by welding and riveting. They also had folding metal butts and arch-shaped 35-round magazines. Bit later Finnish military found out that these new captured submachine guns were the ones Soviets called PPS-42. Summer of 1944 Finnish troops captured also PPS-43 submachine guns, which was more refined version based to PPS-42
Finnish military became almost immediately interested about this new captured weapon. The Finns had been looking easier and cheaper to make alternative for Suomi M/31 submachine gun and like a god-sent the captured PPS submachine guns offered just what they had been looking for. However as the original captured weapons were build for 7.62 mm x 25 Tokarev cartridge the weapon could not be just simply copied, but it had to be redesigned for 9 mm x 19 Parabellum cartridge. Finnish military decided to start development work for 9 mm x 19 Parabellum calibre version and studying possibilities for domestic manufacturing of this new submachine gun. Result of this development work was first 9-mm prototype, which was simply captured PPS submachine gun modified to chamber 9 mm x 19 cartridges. This first prototype was tested in October-November of 1943 and the results turned out to be encouraging, even when tested against the proven Suomi M/31. Due to positive test results the Finns decided to start developing of their own submachine gun model based to PPS
Flame-thrower M/Kuusinen aka flame-thrower M/44
This prototype flame-thrower was named flame-thrower M/44. The prototype was first demonstrated in General Headquarters of Finnish Armed Forces (Päämaja ) in April of 1944. This demonstration proved successful enough to lead into approval of further development and orders for making blueprints. Finally the development work lead into small experimental series, which was manufactured for field-testing. The field-testing was made by troops of Cavalry Brigade, Armour Division and Engineer Battalion 35. For most part the test results were positive. The basic concept worked as intended, attachment of flame-thrower to Suomi M/31 submachinegun was successful and allowed the flame-thrower operator to use both weapons, hence removing the need for submachinegun-man to cover the flame-thrower operator. Flame-thrower M/44 was able to 50 - 70 short flames or up till 40 - 60 seconds of continuous flame, which was highly impressive
7,62 mm Military Rifle M/39 “Ukko-Pekka”
Finland seem to used a lot of homemade Mosins im just gonna mention this
Military rifle M/39 was the second try of Finnish Armed Forces in improvement of Mosin-Nagant. Often used nickname “Ukko-Pekka” came from Finnish Ex-President Per Evind Svinhufvud, who was a well-known competition shooter and NCO of Finnish Civil Guard. Opinion differences concerning requirements needed from military rifle between Suojeluskunta (Finnish Civil Guard) and Armed Forces had lead into introduction of both M/27 and M/28 & M/28-30 rifles, which had some design feature differences that made using the same spare-parts in both rifles impossible. Civil Guard, having less red tape and powerful empasis towards developing rifle marksmanship, had been able to identify problems and solve problems in more effective manner for their rifle development, which culminated to M/27. Spring of 1934 Army finally woke and realised that large amount from M/27 rifles needed for frontline troops were not fit for combat because of structural defects. Ordnance Department of Defence Ministry started seeking solution for this crisis in year 1935. First developing of domestic semiautomatic rifle was considered, but lacking readily available semiautomatic rifle design, which could have been placed into production quickly resulted burying this idea. Not that there would have likely been financing available for introducing new automatic rifle in any real numbers at that point either. Civil Guard was offering its recent M/28-30 rifles as a rifle model which could have been officially approved also for Armed Forces. But personnel of Armed Forces Ordnance Administration were very much against this, since it favoured its own shorter rifle design - test rifle M/91-35. Test rifle M/91-35 was a 7.62 mm x 54R carbine-length bolt-action rifle of Mosin-Nagant family with 111-cm long barrel. It was a final product of numerous Armed Forces committees, who had spent years theorizing on what would be optimal rifle design - while ending with some design features, which seem to make little sense.
The most serious weak point of test rifle M/91-35 design was sights with windage settings being adjusted with purpose built shims, while these were apparently replaced in development work early on, the plan of going with carbine-size rifle lingered longer. Short 111-cm used in M/91-35 and other carbine-size prototypes proved to create excessive muzzle-flash in particular with old cartridges loaded with 9.6-gram/148-grain spitzer bullets. While new 13-gram/200-grain D-166 boat-tail bullet had been adopted as standard bullet type for Finish Armed Forces in year 1936, at that time Finnish ammunition stockpiles contained still mostly old ammunition with 9.6-gram/148-grain bullets. In addition to this the difference between point of impact with ammunition equipped with these bullet types proved too large with carbine-lenght rifle barrel. October of 1938 the process finally started getting somewhere - decision was made to design a new rifle using proven M/28-30 as a starting point. New committee was established to design the new rifle. Members of the new commission contained A.E. Saloranta (co-designer of Lahti-Saloranta M/26 LMG and Harry Mansner (main designer of sights for M/28-30 rifle). Because of all time wasted in earlier delays only one week was given to this new committee for its design work - after which it spent six months in doing the work and failed to produce final rifle model. The committee developed protype rifle referred as No 14, which was shown to Civil Guard in February of 1939 and already had most of new features, which would be later included to final military rifle M/39. Civil Guard responded to this by producing its own new protype rifle with serial number 100932, it was otherwise very similar to No 14 protype, but had new rifle stock design and front sight, which had moved slightly further away from the muzzle. This change in location of front side was introduced to make sure that if bayonet attached to rifle would get get loose on its own, it would drop from the rifle without stopping in such position that could leave it hanging in front of the muzzle. April of 1939 military rifle M/39 was officially approved, but at that time not even blueprints, much less prototype of the rifle existed yet.
- 6,5 mm Infantry Rifle M/96, Swedish Mauser
Rifle M/96 was rifle type developed from previous Mauser M/1893 and main rifle type of Swedish Armed Forces from 1890’s to 1960’s. This rifle was well known for its good shooting accuracy and popular rifle for competitions particularly in 1920’s. Finnish activists had acquired unknown number of Mauser rifles already before Finnish Civil War and more rifles arrived from Sweden during it. In addition Svenska Brigaden (Swedish Brigade), a Swedish volunteer unit which took part in Finnish Civil War fighting in side of Finnish Army, was equipped with Mauser M/96 rifles that it brought from Sweden. The first proper inventory lists of small military equipment in inventory of Finnish Army were made in January of 1919, at which time some 1,360 rifles M/96 were listed. That same year about 400 of them were transferred to Suojeluskunta (Civil Guard) among other mixed weaponry or much of the rest probably sold to civilian market. While Mauser M/96 was a good rifle, as far as Finnish military was concerned it was non-standard calibre (as everything other than 7.62 mm x 53R / 7.62 mm x 54R)
7,65 mm and 9 mm M/Neuhausen MKMS
Finland bought 282 MKMS machineguns during Winter War, but they arrived too late for that. They were issued to Finnish home front troops, supplies units and coastal defence during Continuation War (1941 - 1944)
6,5 mm light machinegun M/21
During Winter War these light machineguns were used by Finnish troops and Finnish Lapland and Brigade-size Swedish-Norwegian SFK volunteer unit. During Continuation War they mainly saw use with Coastal Troops.
Lilja Model 1943
The Lilja Model 1943 is a prototype Finnish automatic rifle.
Inspector Erkki Lilja, a close colleague of Aimo Lahti, was interested in the use of intermediate cartridges (as Lahti was) around the time; as such, Lilja penned the design down for this automatic rifle in 1943. He ended up building the prototype in VKT’s facilities without any official approval from VKT the same year; however, he left the weapon unfinished. The weapon remained incomplete until the 1970s when Lilja finished up construction on the rifle and retired