Question - USAF/E in Finland

Geoff · August 25, 2009, 11:57:44 AM

Ok I am trying to work out a backstory for this. My idea is that Finland as a front line NATO country would have other NATO forces based there like Germany, and in this ATL Norway.

My questions are about how the USAF would organise their forces. I have decided they would come under USAF/E (Nordic Command). Or would they be administered seperately as USAF/S (Scandinavia)?

Should I create a fictional wing for this, or use a deactivated one (my favorite idea). Alternativly could I simply add extra squadrons to an existing wing in USAF/E and base them in Finland? (Sorry if this is a daft question I simply have no idea how these things work).

I was thinking of basing them at Rovanemi, and somewhere in the south either Tampere, Pori, or Kuopio; and wanted to use the 2 letter tail codes of "RV" or "RO" for Rovanemi, and "TA" or "TM" for Tampere. Does anyone know of any sites with info on tailcodes that have been used in the past?

(edit) I have done a search and I think "RO" and "TM" can be used.

Equipment (ie. the models) -

F-102A air defence 1960's -70's.

F-4E air defence !970's - 80's.

F-4D FRS 1970's - 80's

Would F-111's be based this far forward?

Finally - how would the Finns feel/react to this? Happy, or "Yankee go home!"?

Sorry it's a bit long winded, any/all opinions,advice, criticisms, help welcome.

Nick · August 26, 2009, 03:52:20 PM

How do you explain away the Finns need to satisfy the Soviets with arms limitations?
Let's face it, these restrictions were emplaced because Finland fought against Russia in the Winter War and then again with Axis support in the Continuation War. They did very well in military terms!

But the aftermath of being linked with the Nazis' did them no favours. Maybe British support is more forthcoming in 1939/1940 with more Hurricanes and Maltidas being delivered somehow through the Baltic or Norway but that cannot last for long.

Geoff · August 26, 2009, 04:42:10 PM

I was thinking the US plays brinkmanship after offering aid to Finland in the late 1940s,which they did before the co-operation agreement with the USSR was signed, and the Russians started to object to western influence in Finland. (JFK did it brilliantly when the Russians wanted to put IRBMs on Cuba in the early 60's). I have to admit I cannot come up with a really good idea as to why the USA would do that, unless the administration were taking a much harder line with the Russians than they did in real life. Wasn't it Patton who offered to give them a war with the Soviet Union AND make it look like the Russians fault?
The country was not completely occupied by the Soviets at the end of the war. The Soviet 21st army was fought to a standstill but the Finns then had to sue for peace. Stalin didn't want to waste time fighting for every inch of territory, so the Soviet forces took defensive positions and the Finns had to eject the German forces in Lappland.
I was thinking a token combined allied force was based there as an "occupation" force made up of US/UK/French in the west of the country and the Soviets are in Karellia as for real life.
Then as the country was bankrupt after the war the aid is used to support the economy the same as was done in West Germany to stop the Communists gaining popularity. During the 1950s with Finland leaning more to the west it is then ripe to become a NATO member in the same way Germany and Italy were. So in this version there was no co-operation agreement with the USSR.

The military aid from the west nearly all went through Sweden IIRC so it could be done.

TsrJoe · August 27, 2009, 02:26:35 AM

i like your ides Geoff, has a plausible feel to it too (i do like the idea of Rovanemi and Tampere as deployment bases with suitable tailcodes) iv forwarded this thread to a Finnish colleague for any socio/political comment for feedback too

cheers, Joe

Geoff · August 27, 2009, 10:22:54 AM

Thank you Joe.

Radish · August 27, 2009, 12:10:47 PM

I like the idea of Finland being with NATO, and a new "Scandinavian Wing" makes sense with Norway and Denmark adding to the sense of it. I reckon defensive F-102s and the F-4Ds is the way to go, but I'd have thought emergency deployments of attack aircraft, such as the later A-10s, and other stuff might be good. I think F-111s would be "out" but there's nothing to say that later, now, there's not F-15Es and F-16s, both of which are highly capable attack aircraft.
And then, of course, Finland has Western equipment.....Sabres, F-104s....Gs and S(F)s, Crusaders (as fighter-bombers) and F-16s/F-18 mix?

Models....I see models.

Geoff · August 27, 2009, 12:38:23 PM

Hi Rad,
I was going to "do" later a/c like the F-15/16 and A-10 erm, later.
The F-102's and F-4D's are really from the 60's-70's period and are basically my build list. LOL.

I also think the F-111's would be based further back normally. They were based in the UK in real life. But might get forward based "in country" in times of emergency. Thats the sort of thing I could do with advice on.

Hmm, hadn't thought of F-8's. I was thinking as a "frontline" state the Finnish AF would get more state of the art equipment such as F-4's later. But as the standard NATO a/c in Europe seemed to be F-104G in the 60's, I was going with those. With the F-4's coming as their replacement, or the F-16 as for a number of countries like Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium. The "Sale of the Century" thing. Mind you the F-18 they got in real life fits well with that idea. Except of course as it has to be a Wif it'll be an F-18L.

bobbo · August 27, 2009, 04:57:03 PM

Other possibilities for the '50s & '60s might be the Grumman F-11F-1 Tiger, or maybe a few F-100s?

Bobbo

TsrJoe · August 28, 2009, 03:09:28 AM

at a guess id have reckoned the F.111 and other directly 'offensive' types would be held in the UK. (or even Germany) i cant see a problem with 'air defence' types tho and possibly later OV.10 and A.10 once the 'cold war' got even colder with a more overt US./NATO. anti Soviet posture?

drool, F.102 and F.4 with a Finnish flag tail as per the Netherlands based ones, def a neat model idea, perhaps one of our prolific profilers could give it a go too?

cheers, Joe

Geoff · August 28, 2009, 10:40:43 AM

Quote from: bobbo on August 27, 2009, 04:57:03 PM
Other possibilities for the '50s & '60s might be the Grumman F-11F-1 Tiger, or maybe a few F-100s?

Bobbo

Yes, the USAF F-100 would be a good idea in the fighter-bomber role, and in the nuclear strike role as well in wartime. They were based in France and the UK in real life, (20th TFW I think?).

Maverick did a couple of good profiles of Finnish AF F-100D's IIRC.

GTX · August 28, 2009, 01:26:27 PM

Forget the USAF birds - I'm having kittens of the idea of a Finnish F4D!!! Please someone profile this!!!!!

Regards,

Greg

Geoff · August 28, 2009, 02:29:53 PM

I think I am going to move the 525th FIS from Bitburg, or the 526th FIS (F-102A's) from Ramstein to Rovanemi. Along with the 81st TFW (F-4D's) from the UK to Tampere.

To help compensate for the long term use of these bases Valmet are contracted to assist with the maintanence of the US aircraft.

Hi Greg - Yeah I like the idea of a Finn Rhino as well.

lancer · August 29, 2009, 05:24:25 AM

I like the idea of this thread, but I have one question. WHY is just US equpiment being considered/used?? Why not include more British equipment?

Geoff · August 29, 2009, 06:53:05 AM

Umm because the thread is about the USAF based in Finland.

There is another thread about alt timelines in Finland for the Finnish equipment, well that was the idea.

Geoff · August 30, 2009, 09:13:07 AM

Mind you IIRC there was a theory about the USAFE using Tonkas for commonality with Euro forces. So a Tonka GR-3 perhaps based on the F-3 in US markings as has been discussed before will work.