The Soviets didn’t care about Simo HäyHä one bit, what ultimately hit Simo was merely a mortar shell fired by some local troops. They came under sniper fire from a general direction, and returned fire with mortars, that is not a particularly spectacular operation and a fairly reasonable response for platoon or infantry company during an advance.
Simo’s story is one of those things that people just insist on repeating though it is in fact entirely an unverifiable claim. What is the only source of verification that Simo actually killed this people? Simo himself. Let’s say for a moment, that Simo was entirely honest, and he believed this himself. How does Simo know that these people he shot actually died, or were even hit. Did he get up from his hidden position, and go check their corpses? Probably not. Famously, Simo didn’t use a scope, but iron sights. There is a reason why snipers have spotters, and if you go to a gun range and you try to shoot something with a bullet more than 50m away, you’re not gonna be able to just see with your naked eye if you hit it. I find it entirely plausible, that every time Simo pulled his trigger, he simply counted that as a kill. Why not? No one can say otherwise, and he legitimately would not be able to tell either.
Here is another reason why Simo’s story is extremely unlikely. Simo fought for less than 100 days, in the winter. This is the time of the year with the least amount of daytime. Some days in December at Helsinki’s latitude are only 6 hours of daylight. It is in short the worst time of the year for a sniper, to sit around as they have the least amount of time to actually do their sniping in a day. Night vision was not invented yet.
I have another suspicion, which is that if Simo was such a genius, why didn’t his genius make it into a a codified field manual? His tactics that are described are pretty rudimentary, such as using white camoflage in snow, and covering up his muscle in snow to make it hidden. Other tactics which are claimed he used includes filling his mouth with snow, my problem with this one is that snow will cause mouth tissue necrosis after about 60 seconds of holding it at max even once. Additionally, within seconds it will cause irritation and disrupt breathing regularly. And supposedly this was his common tactic for disguising his position. Such a genius sniper apparently didn’t think regular breathing was important for sniping, I wonder how many modern snipers feel this way.
I could go on, like the fact that Ivan Sidorenko claimed about the same number of sniper kills, but fought in a more target rich environment, and fought not for 100 days, but for 4 years, using the newest sniping technology available, and is considered one of the best snipers in history, trained loads of snipers in the field, and had years of military training even before 1941. But Simo wasn’t just better than Ivan Sidorenko, he was 1400% better, if you go by number of kills per day, and of course even more so if we go by kills per hour as that Ivan fought in a place where they actually had daylight.
I am making a long wind up, apologies. There are as far as I can see, zero reports from the Soviet side that acknowledge Simo even existed. The Soviet forces at the Battle of Kollaa were Simo was active, took 8,000 casualties, not dead, but casualties in total. Let’s say around around 3,000 of those were actual deaths, that would mean that Simo’s kill count of 500, or 700 by some people who also credit him with over 200 SMG kills, however ridiculous that is represent around 16.7% - 23.3% of total Soviet losses in this area.
1 Sniper, 16.7% of losses. He must have been living rent free Soviet mind, yet no casualty report mentions snipers as being a serious problem at all. Strange.
Бои в Финляндии. Воспоминания участников 1941 - details a passage from a Soviet sniper team, engaging a Finnish sniper at 300m range, effective engagement range with a scope, but fairly ineffective for someone using only iron sights.
Well of course Simo is propaganda, a way of boosting the moral of the Finish troops by creating a common farmer as a super soldier.
Essentially, the story of the "Ghost of Kyiv" is the same as the story of this Finnish sniper.
I am Finnish, and the answer is basically the number of kills was counted by another soldier by certain criteria, but it's impossible to verify, and also propaganda. Also it's said that an explosive bullet hit his face instead of shrapnel from a mortar, the mortar sounds more likely to me. This Finnish text will explain it in more detail:
Joidenkin lähteiden, kuten esimerkiksi sotahistoriaan erikoistuneen kirjailija Robert Brantbergin, mukaan Häyhä ampui kiväärillä jopa 542 puna-armeijan sotilasta. Antti Rantamaa hyvitti Häyhälle kirjassaan myös 542 tappoa. Kansallisbiografian julkaiseman historioitsija, dosentti Risto Marjomaan artikkelin mukaan oikea uhriluku voisi olla noin 200 sotilasta, mikä sekin tekee hänestä yhden kaikkien aikojen tehokkaimmista tarkka-ampujista. Häyhän surmaamien vihollisten määrään ei laskettu ryhmänjohtajan ominaisuudessa konepistoolilla ammuttuja, joita joidenkin lähteiden mukaan oli yli 200.
Häyhän tarkka-ampujana kiväärillä surmaamien neuvostosotilaiden virallinen määrä perustui erityisesti nimitetyn tarkkailijan tai taistelutoverien havaintoihin. Laskuja ei tehty usean ampujan ampuessa samaa kohdetta. Häyhä teki kaikki tapponsa vain kolmen kuukauden sisällä ennen haavoittumistaan. Brandtbergin mukaan Häyhä muun muassa ampui ennätykselliset 25 neuvostosotilasta yhden päivän aikana, 21. joulukuuta 1939, minkä hän ”korsuun” palatessaan saattoi ilmoittaa vain mainitsemalla luvun ”kakskymmentviis”. Kolmen joulunaluspäivän yhteissaldo oli 51 miestä. Osuman tulosta ei tietenkään voitu varmistaa, sillä kohteet olivat venäläisten puolella. Asiaa mutkistaa vielä se, että Häyhän saavutuksia käytettiin propagandan välineenä: lehdistö rakensi jo varhaisessa vaiheessa Häyhän ympärille sankarimyyttiä.
not related, but finnish language is hella cool
Thank you. It is unique, especially. My dialect especially, it's like Karelian grammar with Finnish vocabulary.
oh damn thats amazing
Both the winter and continuation wars were propagandized as great victories for Finland. Within that context, a legendary sniper who eliminated loads of mindless enemies werent that surprising.
When reactionaries try to find historical "owns" against the USSR it's always hilariously propagandized bullshit they've pulled out of their ass. Every negative thing about the USSR in WW2 is just Nazi cope and projection.
•Nazis were much more reliant on "horde tactics" than the Soviets. The Soviets applied modern military tactics like everyone else. At points of Barbarossa, the Nazis even had numerical superiority.
•Nazi equipment wasn't always superior to Soviet equipment. Real war is not a video game where the highest technical stats mean the equipment is better. If you have a battle tank that is a bit better than mine in effective range or whatever but my tank can be fixed with a hammer and my factories can pump them out like candy whereas your tank requires specialists and bleeds you of your resources... Guess who's coming out on top in the end.
•The idea of Hitler being a bumbling idiot and his generals being hidden geniuses that he didn't listen to is another major cope. Hitler was probably the smartest Nazi by a mile.
There's a bunch of other stuff as well, feel free to add more examples. So yeah, while I never looked into the story of that Finnish sniper (he's so irrelevant it's funny), I wouldn't be surprised if it's more anti-Soviet cope.
In the end, it was the leadership of the USSR that destroyed the USSR, not some outside threat.
I mean, the loss of 28 million people is absolutely staggering, the more so since, on paper, the Red Army should have been relatively well-matched against the Wehrmacht in 1941. Yet severe command and control weaknesses self-inflicted with the Great Purge allowed the Germans to reach the gates of Moscow, destroying most of the pre-war Red Army along the way, and exposing the bulk of the population to Nazi occupation and atrocities.
Half of Soviet military deaths occurred in 1941, with the 4 million Red Army troops killed in that year alone being quadruple the total Western Allied death toll. At a time when the technological and numerical conditions were closest to parity, the Germans tore through their Soviet counterparts. It would take 3 years for the Red Army to return the favour.
Leaving aside the human toll (since good communists think only in terms of statistics), the sheer loss of manpower to the war created a demographic dip which severely impeded the USSR's economic growth, aligning neatly with the increasing stagnation which marked its final two decades.
Great post and posed question. There's a pretty shocking lack of critical analysis of the 700 odd kills that are claimed. Sure it's previously been called out, but this particular claim seems to be really readily eaten up without much analysis. To the point of being peculiar.
Probably cause Simo is basically 90% hot air and propaganda.
Well you nailed it, pretty much what I think of that story plus you added some detail, like 6 hours of daylight. BS story, Ghost of Kiev tier but even worse.
His stats could be correct given the lack of respect that the Soviet leadership had for the lives of Soviet soldiers. If masses of poorly equiped and poorly protected soldiers keep coming your way, you just keep shooting and take them out one by one.
The same thing is happening in Ukraine now.
You are an example of how propaganda infiltrates people's minds.
If you want to discuss, then this is not how it's done.
no point in discussing things when you are coming from an entirely wrong view tbh. and it seems like your favorite sources on soviet army and its warfare are Enemy at the Gates and Call of Duty🔥🔥🔥
Yes, it is much more interesting to discuss with those sharing your skewed views.
oooh, me xr484, me smart, me not brainwashed, me regurgitating propaganda that first appeared in memorials of german officers, oooh
That's not how war works