Winter War Alternative History

Admin Edit:

This What If was split off from an existing discussion. Normally, new Alternative History threads have to be approved before they are released for discussion. Please keep that in mind as you introduce new alternative threads/posts and place them in the correct location, please.

I agree that Finland needed basically everything so any help, Italian or not, is good. So what is at the top of the list ? Italian aircrafts are likely to reach Finland at the latest because of just flying under permission from Germany and Finland with refuelling at airstrips.

The SU was a large nation; even German generals and senior miliarty leadership voiced great concern for that Fuhrer venture. How can we in 2015 expect that Finland as a small nation in military prowess turned the Red tide, let alone any reinforcement or 3 divisions ? This expectation is unrealistic. However,

So let assume in alternative history FInland wanted to achieve following political aims (thus up for discussion):
1) readdress the balance and recontrol the lost territories in the Winter War
2.1) enter East Karelia/Karelian Republic
2.2) reach the White Sea coast
3) Establish the border of Isthumuses
4) take Murmansk and cutting off Allies supply from Western Europe through coasts in Sápmi

Taking Murmansk is the most difficult because the occupation likely gives the Allies in the West pretexts for their own political aims, in favor of Soviet or not. Winter War showed Finland barely able to withstand one great military Soviet power, which one or more Allies in the West joins is definitely an endgame. Recontrolling lost territories was achievable.
Taking EK/KR was partially achieved. With Italian help, could the joint forces reached the coast and take the whole EK/KR ? The idea of Bulgarian miiddleman overture based on scant sources could achieve #3 if this option is expanded in scope. If Finland achieve these two miliary and political aims on the low tide of Soviet might in late 1941 and early 1942, can Italian forces be of any help ?

Both Finland and Italian had significant agrarian population background but Italian industries manufactured their own military machines in larger quantity than Finland. Were Finnish AFV at that time either purchased, refitted or reconditioned from usable parts of destroyed or non-functionable vehicles ?

Let me put this idea in a larger picture. If Italian industries in economic difficulties after ww1 expands into other markets in Eastern Europe to fill some void from collapsed Imperial Russia and Austro-Hungary control of market, can both Finland and Italy, and other non great European powers benefit from more cooperation? Why must Finland need mostly German help, before the Winter War? In a tank, Finland could use

1) Czech chasis with Finnish designed wider tracks
2) Swedish armor and Bofors 37 mm refitted for turret
3) Italian and Finnish design for tank interior and crew; for example, two machine gun slits that allow most infantry machine guns be easily mounted or dismounted; 4 men crew in driver, loader/rear infantry machine gunner, main gunner, radio operator/commander/front infantry machine gunner
4) American Christie suspension if possible

Would this imagined Finnish tank be manufactuted for Italian and Finnish land forces. Maybe it is like a Stridsvagn m/40 with LT vz. 38 chasis and Bofors 37 mm antitank gun. Given how Finnish military leadership managed the Winter War, this 4 men crew 37mm-vz38-m/40 may at least take out BT tanks in the Winter War. After this war, 37mm-vz38-m/40 with reverse engineered Christie suspension from capture BT tanks are built in Finland and Italy. Can this new tank 37mm-vz38-Christie-m/40 in Finnish forces, Italian tanks and tankettes, along with captured KV1's achieve some kind of blitz warfare in achieving political aim#2 ?

 

Thank admin(s) for noticing and editing which underline quality of their works. Putting that content in alternative historical context, the content could have spanned since the white victory in the Finnish Civil War to 1941/1942 for the window of opportunity for the FInnish military advancement.

 

Well, I would say that at least the following articles would have been more important in 1941 than the transport aircraft - not in any particular order:
- more food
- more sub-machine guns
- modern, lighter machine guns
- modern artillery
- more and/or modern AA artillery
- more AT artillery
- modern tanks
- more lorries/trucks
- more pioneer material
- more radios
- more other communication material
- modern fighter aircraft
- more modern medium bombers

1. Yes
2.1. Yes
2.2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No. Taking Murmansk was not necessary to cut off the Western supplies from the North. 2.2. would have been enough for that.

Not likely in 1941. As I have explained before the new war was supposed to be a short one and the USSR was supposed to collapse soon anyway. It didn't happen though.

By the time the reality had been accepted, the extra assistance called for help and the Italians transported to Finland it would have been well into 1942. If the German example was anything to learn about, the Italians wouldn't have been of much use soon - and the Finns had by then demobilized already anyway.

I'm sorry, but I'm quite pessimistic about this scenario.

All of your examples were used. Most of the Finnish AFV in 1941 were generously provided by the USSR in the Winter War - though not willingly...

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/05/finnish-armored-forces-in-ww2/

Are we talking about the Winter War (1939-40) or the Continuation War (1941-44)?

Before the Winter War the problem was, that when Finland realized the need for more war material only limited options were available and even then some bad choices were made. Right before the war it was very difficult to purchase e.g. tanks. Also in a situation where the Finnish armed forces needed practically everything, tanks were not in the top of the list - being more suited for offence than defence.

"In 1936, Finnish army placed an order for 32 Vickers 6-ton tanks, which were considered the most modern and most suitable for Finnish heavily forested environment. Unluckily for the Finnish Armored Forces, Finland couldn’t afford to buy the tanks with armament, but decided to arm the tanks themselves. Thus, most of the Vickers were still in process of being armed with 37mm guns and only one tank company was ready for action in late February, when the Winter War was already nearing its end."

After that war and before the Continuation War it was were difficult to buy anything anywhere, because all countries needed their thanks themselves.

 

If other alternative histories go, Finland could have
1) more food from Italy and Spain.
The later would concentrate on rebuilding their economy from Civil War and be happy to see Finland buying their foodstuff to generate foreign revenue.

2) more more sub-machine guns, modern, lighter machine guns, more AT artillery
Could the co-belligerent ordnance industry develop RPGs and general use machine guns that would be very popular among infantry ? Panzerfaust and AK-47 went back in time to appear during ww2 on the axis side

3) more AT artillery, more tanks
This category is more feasible, still in the realm of alternative history, than the probability for all Panzerfaust, AK-47, MG34/42 appeared for the axis side.
A semovente 75/18 or Hetzer Tank destroyer appeared much earlier in ww2 in turn of 1930s to 40s, coupled with Panzerfaust would provide an economical option against the tide of Soviet tanks for artillery and infantry. Both TDs could evolve as they engaged Soviet tanks, much like how Stug3 became so popular.

4) more trucks
Could the axis power produce a Jeep ?

5) more radios and more other communication material
Could Spain and Italy be active in making more radios ?

 

Had Germany sold Finland 100 Hs 123 (and the tooling, materials and engines to produce 100 more, instead of throwing away the tooling), 100 Bf 109, 60 He 111, 100 88 mm guns with 100,000 shells (half AT and half HE), 1, 000 MG 34, 1,000 82 mm mortars with 200,0000 shells and 250,000 antipersonnel and 100,000 AT mines before signing the R-M pact and on condition of allowing passage to German troops, and had Finland bought from Sweden 400 40 mm AA guns with 80,000 AT and 300,000 AA shells and produced 3,000 MG 34 in 7,92 Kurz, not only would Finland have stopped the USSR, it would have captured Kola and Karelia and inflicted tremendous casualties and tank, ship and plane losses on the USSR. It would have been Germany's best move before the war and it would have made life very difficult for Stalin.

The HS 123 was the ideal dive bomber for Finland: cheap, reliable, tough, air cooled engine, a crew of 1 and it used less fuel than the Stuka. It would have been very effective against ships, trains, advancing columns on the few roads, artillery, pillboxes, tanks, infantry and it could even double as an interceptor for loaded SB bombers, etc,

A lighter, shorter barrel, Finnish MG 34 in 7.92 mm Kurz would have been ideal for troops on skis and extremely effective within 150 m (in the forests most fighting took place at short range). The short case allows a rapid rate of fire, even without ball bearing on the bolt, which together with the shorter barrel makes production much easier and the gun lighter and easier to handle and less noisy. The ammo is cheaper and lighter, ideal for mobile troops. The reduced powder capacity, muzzle velocity and bullet length result in less barrel heating and wear, so that barrels are replaced much less often (fewer barrels need to be carried and they're lighter).

The 40 mm Bofors would have been ideal against light tanks and planes and the 88 mm against heavy tanks and personnel.

With these weapons, Finland could have captured lots of of badly needed cannon, heavy MG, mortars, munitions, tanks, trucks, supplies, etc,

The HS 123 droping 50 l alcohol-pine resin Molotov cocktails with stabilizing fins and with great accuracy would have been quite an effective and demoralizing weapon

 

You know nothing about firearms, correct?

 

Finland has been rich in timber resources.
How about British giving Finland a hand and more in de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito. Is the glue in urea-formaldehyde derivable from agricultural and timber bio-waste ? Given British licensed, could Finland build much more DH.98 from locally sourced timber than donated, purchased aircrafts.? The factor that Finnish peoples have been involved in timber industries for decades if not centuries would be contributing. DH.98 had been used for photo-reconnaissance -- good for searching out Red Army forces in Karelia and Kola, fighter, night fight, tactical bomber, fight-bomber, torpedo bomber. While most mentioned roles would be just replacing the existing roles from other aircrafts, the last role might have a game changing effect. The Red Army could be supplied from the White Sea coast; torpedo bomber Finnish DH.98 could fly from domestic, captured or newly built airstrips to bomb Red Army shipments ?

 

Was the timber in Finland suitable for building Mosquitos? My understanding is that they used Sitka Spruce from the Pacific Northwest.

 

Will you pay U$ 24,000 for a working one firing over 1,100 rpm, weighing under 78% as much as an MG 34, deposited in an escrow account with a lapsing time of 70 days after verification of the deposit? In order not to have difficulty getting 7.92 Kurz ammo, I suggest making it for the cheap Russian round. If you want it made of titanium it will weigh under 48% as much as the MG34 and cost $62,000 and a lapsing time for the escrow account of 100 days. To the same accuracy at 100 m and reliability specs of the MG 34.

 

Thank you for the response. Now, let's go through some of your points 1 by 1.

8mm Kurz was not ready for service in 1939, both because the design was not finalized until a year later and there was no infrastructure for of producing it in large quantity before ~well into 1941. Your premise fails. A submachine gun loaded with hot 9mm ammunition (you know, like the Finns used) is also "extremely effective" within 150m but lets not think about that.

Yes, a shorter case for a given action may result in a higher rate of fire (dependent on extraction pressure, etc). But what is the point? The MG34 fires ~900RPM. Is that not fast enough for you? What about your ammo supply? Are the ski troops swooshing through the Finnish woods with toboggans full of ammunition?

Note that the MG34 does not have "ball bearings" on the bolt. The MG42 does have what one could passably call "ball bearings", so lets assume you are talking about it (of course, the MG42 was not available in 1939 but lets not let facts hold this up). You want to omit the "ball bearing" -- so in essence you are proposing a straight blowback machine gun firing a large bottleneck cartridge? I suggest you research the purpose of the "ball bearings". Without them, the first firing will go something like this (although I severely doubt this design would continue firing after the first shot):

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITmvl5wTAUw[/YOUTUBE]

Of course, it is possible to design a machine gun in an intermediate cartridge without using the "ball bearing", but at that point it ceases to become a variant of an action with a "ball bearing". Also note that adopting a new cartridge to an existing action is not a matter of scaling everything down uniformly and is essentially designing a new action.

A short barrel does not make production "much easier" (additionally, note that factories are already set up across Germany turning out long barrels in large numbers without difficulty). The same can be said for omission of the crucial "ball bearing" that stops the weapon from exploding in your face.

A short barrel is not "less noisy". Indeed, the opposite is generally true. Gasses expanding, drop in pressure and all that. If you want a quieter gun, add a suppressor. Lets neglect the added recoil, which makes hand-firing the weapon impossible to do with any degree of accuracy. Note that MG42 is at best a handful to control even firing from an unsecured (i.e. non-sandbagged) bipod, so a short-barreled version firing from hand while on skis is of limited use. The gun becomes more "handy" to carry, at the cost of being more cumbersome to use with any degree of effectiveness -- hardly a good trade-off.

Yes, ammo is lighter. But how much do you carry? Lets say that each soldier carried 1000 round on his person (an impossibly high number as this would weigh ~17kg and add significant bulk). 1000 rounds would be enough for ~1 minute of firing. "Bullet length" has no practical correlation with barrel wear, and any advantages in heat dissipation are immediately mitigated by your higher rate of fire. Controlled firing (i.e. controlled second-long bursts, like machine gunners were trained to do) will not wear out a MG34/MG42 barrel until after many thousands of rounds are fired. The practice of changing barrels was done to avoid overheating when firing hundreds of rounds continuously from a set position, which is irrelevant here especially when you carry only enough ammunition for around 1 minute of firing and this weapon is impossible to accurately fire hand-held to begin with; but lets give each soldier one or two spare barrels anyway just because you say so. So, we end with >> 50lbs of weight solely for a machine gun that gives 1 minute of highly uncontrollable fire. Keep in mind, of course, what ski troops were intended to do and where/under what conditions they were used. Hardly practical, is it?

Umm......what? If you are proposing selling me a home-made machine gun, please note that weapons manufacturing, transport and sale across national borders without appropriate licenses is illegal. I'm sure your local law enforcement agency would be happy to explain illegal arms trafficking to you.

All military ammo was "cheap" at the time of production. Assuming you are referring to what we today would call the "cheap Russian round" (7.62x39mm), this was also not available in 1939. Conversely, the other "cheap Russian round" we see today is the 7.62x54mmR. This was equivalent in use/application to the 8mm Mauser, so why begin creating your Winter War-winning machine gun in the first place? If this is instead a reference to selling me a machine gun, please see above.

And where would the Germans get enough titanium to make machine guns for export that don't work and have no practical application in 1939? Is this a good use of resources considering that shortages that are shortly to come? Conversely, if you are trying to sell me a machine gun please refer to my previous comment on the legality of selling fully automatic weapons across national borders without the appropriate licensing.

If you say so...

Cheers!

 

The rate of fire is lower than that of late models MG34 and the MG 42, which the Finns would have loved to use in large numbers in 1939. One doesn't fire for a minute in an attack, but very short bursts. But if you want to reduce the rate of fire, that is no problem at all, by changing the bolt it can be easily cut in half . The problem is achieving a high rate (the virtue of the MG 34 and 42). The sky troops collect rounds from the staging base, where ammo is delivered by sled, etc, they use drums for an attack, setting up positions to support troops with subMG

The tooling to produce a case and bullet is made within 2 weeks (before the tooling to produce thousands of MG 34 is finished) and they are used in the same machinery for the long 7.92 mm cartridge. Even if initially a brass case is used instead of steel, it is cheaper than the long case and the heavy bullet and much easier to carry in combat.
Producing such a cartridge is a piece of cake. The Finns can chose between a short version of the Soviet cartridge or the German cartridge and they are producing the gun uncer license, not the Germans. The Finns can even sell a few thousand guns and drum magazines and a lot of cartridges to the Germans for Holland-France and then for Barbarossa, who never made enough MG 34 and to the Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, etc, The Germans would have loved it for paratroopers, storm troopers, Stalingrad, forest fighting, etc, whereever short range fighting predominates.

The time and cost of producing a 34 MG barrel, bolt, spring, etc, certainly depend on their length, why do you think 59 kg of steel were used to make a 12,1 kg gun? It is recoil operated, so the whole barrel has to be machined to leave the muzzle booster. If the Finns develop a method to cold head or friction weld the muzzle booster, they can reduce cost and production time considerably and make a fortune supplying Germany, etc,
Turning, drilling, rifling and reaming a shorter barrel for a shorter round is faster, easier and cheaper. It produces less tool wear and down time replacing tools. The worklers also have to move lighter blanks, so they get less tired and produce more.
Steel was cheap for the Germans, but expensive for the Finns, so the latter are much more motivated to find efficient ways to reduce steel usage, which as a side effect usually reduces machining and shipping costs too and improves field performance.

Can you imagne just having to process so many kg of swarf, etc, per MG 34? The Finns should probably have been able to produce the short vesion using 20 kg of steel (wasting a lot less steel, power and labor).

The Chinese (who were very short on steel) did produce some MG 34, too bad they used the standard case and barrel length.

 

If you are using Wiki...It is 49 kg of steel not 59 kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34

Of course, this being Wiki the source for this fact is not cited.

 

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, you have made my day.

Really? How much lower is the rate of fire? The MG42 is 1200 RPM -- so we're talking about having a rate of fire between 900RPM (as per your original post) and 1200RPM? What is the point?

Then why have a totally useless rate of fire? If you "cut the bolt in half" you will end up with a similar malfunction that the Iraqi gentlemen in the video above encountered. Note that to decrease the rate of fire you generally increase the weight of the bolt (F=m*a and all that physics stuff which is totally irrelevent here...). A MG34 "drum" (note: just an empty shell holding a 50 round belt) would be sufficient for about 3 seconds of firing. When they run out do they load a new belt while under fire and on the move? How many belts are they carrying? The "assault drum" magazine which held 75 rounds was unreliable and overly complex, and withdrawn from use by 1943 -- hardly a war-winning weapon in the harsh conditions of Finland.

Sky troops? Are these delivered by the H6Ks that migrated from Midway, to Ceylon, to Sardinia and now Finland (presumably on their way to Moscow)?

Oh, these are support troops now? Then why use a short barrel and an intermediate cartridge? The support role is excellently filled by a standard MG34 or MG42 -- one of which - in 1939 - is currently in production in large numbers.

2 weeks to produce the tooling? You are clueless. I suggest reading works of "literature" on it. Of course, this neglects the fact that the design of the cartridge isn't ready for another year. So in your ATL they are not only starting production from of a new design from scratch in 2 weeks, but are also producing (in large numbers) a design that wasn't completed until a year later. Note that the "heavy bullet" is a difference of a massive 4 grams. Any weight/space savings in carrying a smaller cartridge are immediately mitigated by the higher rate of fire, plus the added and unnecessary bulk of carrying a belt-fed weapon for an intermediate cartridge. A better option would be to have a magazine-fed automatic rifle, but that's logical and we don't want to look in that direction.

The Finnish weapons industry was at near-maximum capacity. They would not produce guns for export. Again, the "short version" of the "Soviet cartridge" was not invented until 3 years from the Winter War. The Germans had a gun for "short range fighting"; it was called the MP44. This took ~2 years to develop. Is your "Finn-MG" a replacement, compliment, or what? Why will it take less time to develop? I strongly suggest you research difficulties encountered in rechambering semiautomatic and automatic firearms to different cartridges. It is not a matter of a uniform scaling/chop and paste of a schematic but requires extensive theoretical, mathematical, physical and numerical analysis to get right. But the gun will catastrophically fail anyway as discussed in my previous post, so I guess it really doesn't matter how rigorous the design process is.

Do some research into what materials were required and why. As a blind comparison, the BREN used 100lbs worth of steel blanks and was a very different firearm. The MG34 is indeed short recoil operated; the MG42 which you referenced previously is not. What do you want to discuss? The "muzzle booster" is not machined to the barrel so I am unsure what good welding it would do other than complicate manufacture (isn't this contrary to the point of making your "Finn-MG"?). Also note that if the booster is attached to the barrel, you can no longer remove the barrel from the rear and must do it from the front -- exposing the gunner to fire and significantly increasing the time required to perform the change. The booster is threaded to the barrel shroud, and the barrel sits behind it -- but I assume you are already aware of this. Why would the Germans pay a "fortune" for an inferior design? Actually, with Hitler, Goering et al that sounds exactly like something they'd go for. I'll admit that you are completely correct on that point.

A shorter round has nothing to do with barrel length. Germany is already set up to produce thousands and thousands of these unwieldy "long barrels", as is Finland. If your workforce tires by having to carry a barrel that is presumably <6 inches shorter, you need new workers. A barrel is not heavy enough to cause widespread exhaustion among the workers. Shipping costs? Are these being sent by UPS? Savings in manufacturing time are minor when compared to the other complexities in the design. You are aware that manufacturing of different parts can occur concurrently? Yes, "field performance" (that is, reducing the load carried by troops) would be improved to some degree but this is immediately mitigated by the barrel spares you mandate each soldier to carry, the added ammunition and greatly increased weight by having each solder carry a belt-fed machine gun as opposed to the historical SMGs.

Yes, I can imagine. Large chip production is common with any complex design. Are you aware of basic principles of milling and using a lathe? You are aware that chips can be processed and re-used without difficulty? Of course, the other option is that we sell the chips in order to pay UPS for the shipping costs.

Considering the BREN took 100lbs of steel blanks, it would be a truly remarkable feat for the Finns to make a "Finn-MG" with only 20kg. Stamping would be the route to go if you want to minimize wasted material but that would mean making a completely new design that can only be done after a rigorous analysis of all stresses, etc.

No, I think the average Chinese soldier would consider themselves most fortunate to have not manufactured your design.

 

Sources please. Especially if you are talking high quality steel this is very suspect.

 

Steel is one of the few things Germany had. Ironically, it paid much of the iron ore, AAA, etc, from Sweden with German steel produced with that ore and used by the Swedes to make that AAA. etc, for example the Swedes sold a ton of iron ore, which was paid with 250 kg of German steel. The Swedes then used the steel to make Bofors guns and sold them to the Germans, Finns, Romanians, etc, When Germany occupied Alsace-Lorraine it acquired iron ore and steel mills, greatly improving its situation.

Finland produced practically no steel from ore, only remelted steel from scrap, which before the Soviet attack was not very abundant (its small population did not produce a lot of scrap).
Finland could have paid for German steel, lead, etc, with short MG 34 and ammo. But it would try to use as little steel and labor as possible to maximize production and income with its limited resources.
Germany would benefit by having more MG 34, which require less German steel.

The fact that the WM never had enough MG 34, MG 42, Sturmgewehr, PZ IV, Panther, Tiger, 88 mm guns, etc, despite huge German resources illustrates the big German mistake of looking only at complicated, quality weapons, instead of designing good but readily producible weapons. Only after Kursk, when the war was long lost did huge numbers of cheap Panzerfaust reach the front, but even then, there were never enough of the much safer, but more expensive Panzerschreck guns and rockets.at the front (its longer ranger gave the operator better chance of surviving)

 

Patton, if you expect me to respond to your posts please pay more attention. I never said to cut the bolt in half, this is what I said.
But if you want to reduce the rate of fire, that is no problem at all, by changing the bolt it can be easily cut in half .

In simpler terms, by modifying the bolt the rate of fire can be cut in half (or more)

 

Oh, I'm paying attention. I suggest you brush up on the use of basic punctuation. And since you now agree with what I proposed, I'm sure you are aware that changing the bolt (by increasing the mass or by some other means) will not "easily cut" the cyclic rate of fire in half? Again, I suggest you read some literature. For example, there were several designs that utilized a bolt weight and none of them "easily cut" the cyclic rate by the amount you are suggesting. Am I correct in assuming you have no experience with engineering, machining, firearms and/or design? But hold on a second; if the goal is to decrease the cyclic rate why are we building a machine gun that has a "higher" rate of fire than the base design in the first place?

Where the response to the rest of what I wrote? Still waiting for a reply to my first message too....

 

Ummm...Germany, while cooperating closely with Bofors(specifically Krupp on design work), really was not buying Bofors weaponry, neither was Romania(at least pertaining to the 40mm Bofors).

 

I love people that make crap up too.

In this case, Germany obtained the 4cm Flak 38 from:

Austria in the Anschluss. They were license-building the Bofors at Staatsfabrik Wein and the Germans took over 50 or 52, 24 of which they sold back to Sweden. The factory was then converted to build German-designed 3.7cm Flak 41.

Norway, which was buying guns and producing licensed guns at Kongsberg Arsenal. The Germans captured 8 from the Army (produced in Belgium), 10 at Norsk Hydro (probably Swedish-built), and 40 at the Arsenal under construction. Another 578 ship mounts and 247 fixed ground mounts were built at the Arsenal for the Germans beginning in 1943.

Poland, which prewar bought 60 Swedish guns, then license built them at Towarzystwo Starachowickich Zakladow Gorniczych, c. 285 to the Polish Army (many, but not all, captured by the Germans), 24 to Spain (disguised as "Peru"), 24 to the Netherlands (of 40 ordered), and 144 (or fewer) for Britain (of 163 ordered). Another 20 were with Polish troops who fled to Romania and were then seized, with some being used at Ploesti.

Belgium, which obtained a license to produce them at Fabrik National, which built another 150 before the German invasion.

Netherlands, which bought 12 from Sweden, the 24 from Poland, and 10 from Hungary.

Hungary produced 1,084, selling 10 to the Netherlands, 150 to the Germans, 36 to Finland (42 contracted, but 6 not delivered), 8 to China, and 68 to Sweden.

From weapons captured from the British in 1940 and then in North Africa, including likely some of the Polish-made exports, which were among the first the British obtained.

The Germans eventually sold 92 guns to Finland, including ex-Dutch, ex-Polish, and some new Austrian manufacture. They also traded at least 54 and possibly as many as 79 to Romania as part of the Oil Pact.

Conspicuously absent from this list are Swedish-manufactured guns traded to the Germans for "German steel".

 

Sources please. German iron ore was of fairly low quality they did buy ore and steel both from Sweden from what I recall reading. Note that this does not mean steel was cheap in Germany or expensive in Finland. The above by the way is not a source it's another unbacked statement on your part, i.e. about as far from a source as one can get. If you are really interested in this there is a lot of info in Wages of Destruction, I don't have my copy at hand right now but I'm pretty sure it does not support your position.