Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I am more than a little frustrated at the fact that after 7 pages of discussion most of the "problem" turns out to be caused by a misinterpreation of the slow attribute given to wire FOs.

Well, 6 mins delivery time for a crack FO is still slow in my book.

Besides these Finns are hardier than I expected, you'd think that my deluge of posts would ultimatly numb them into to submission, but no.....

Our fathers and grandfathers stood against a deluge of Soviet shells and they were not numbed into submission, damn it !

[EDIT] Every time I edit my post I introduce more spelling errors.. either I'm dyslcix* or it some kind of conspiracy :eek:

You are being Finladizierung-ized.

[ October 21, 2002, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

(and no disrespect Tero, you some times have a point though you often present it poorly)

I do make some assumptions on the level of knowlegde of others.

But I can not always write a book when I try to make a point and start it by telling how the pseudo-Finns came from the Urals.

When I get my CMBB I'll show what a über kick your ass Finn I am! Wait for the challenge!

You are on, pal.

Just say when !

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

(moving your FO's with maneauver units, which didn't happen historically).

What "manouver" units ? Only one armoured unit in the Finnish army. And no APC's. Most of the rest used bicycles, horse transports or were on foot.

And the US Army is on record about how the Germans did learn from Finns the proper use of mortars in woods by trailing the mortars 200m behind the units and use a trailing line to indicate distance to the mortars from the FO unit. When targeting the FO would simply add 200 (or what ever the distance was as indicated by the line) to the distance and the mortar fire would be spot on the target.

[ October 21, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Nabla:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There are far too many details even for a fairly small force like Finland. Some are going to be wrong, left out, or even entered into the game with a typo. The StuG introduction date is a perfect example.

Our Finnish researchers, and our research, did not initially turn up an exact introduction date. We had sometime in 1943. Charles figured that the first of the year was as good a guess as any and put that in. Obviously this was quite wrong So then we did more research and found that September 1943 was technically correct, and that date was entered into the 1.01 patch. But further research (some of which I dug up myself) showed that they weren't actually used until the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. So the date was changed to reflect that.

Yep, there sure are a lot of details, even for a small country, let alone for the whole front (i.e., the guys at BTS).

We found out that the first Stugs were delivered 29.8.1943, but at that time I really didn't pay enough attention to when they saw action for the very first time. According to Kantakoski they were indeed used for the first time (at least in a large scale) in June 1944, which is the date Steve has successfully dug out.

I'll provide you with some further details on Monday, if you have the patience.

</font>

[Sardaukar]

Some of the problem people seem to have about Finnish "victory" in WW II is probably caused by different definitions of victory. To Finns in WW II, starting from Oct 1939, keeping our independence and national sovereignity was the primary goal. Nothing else went over that, not before, during or after the wartime period. Since that was always achieved, and achieved by fighting against large odds, we Finns definitely think that as victory.

There were 3 capital cities in Europe during WW II belonging to warfighting nations that were never occupied by enemy : London, Moscow and Helsinki. We do consider that as victory.

When it comes to destroying one's enemy militarily like Allies did to Germany, Italy and Japan...we cannot claim to have done that to Soviet Union. But none of other nations that fought Soviet Union during WW II remained either politically or militarily independent after war.

That achievement we definitely think as victory. And, according to Soviet/Russian documents and archives...it wasn't because they were not trying. Esplicit orders and resource allocations both during 1939 and 1944 tell their story. But, they were stopped...twice.

Now, I'm asking only that historically correct equipment would be available. So called "überfinn" thing that people think we are wanting is totally ridiculous. Some people seem to think we shpuld be lot weaker than it was/is in reality..I'm just questioning why ? No minor modification/addition of units is going to raise Finns in par with Germans and Soviets and it's not asked nor desired..since it wasn't equipment that brought those achievements.

Now, after career in Finnish army (lot of it in signals), I can tell that even nowadays Finnish brigade has as much signals troops in it's artillery regiment than rest of the brigade..and artillery is considered the most important to have good communications with infantry battaillons in front. That hasn't changed from 1939-45. Winter War taught us especially how important artillery is, especially in defence. Those lessons were put in use 1941 and due equipment purchases Finnish Army was massively more capable of supporting front line during 1944 than it was in Winter War or even in 1941. Every eyewitness account says that when Finnish artillery was available and was used, it was quite decisive. Plenty of references have been quoted but I don't recall any sources to oppose that. If I have to go to Military Archives in Helsinki and dig dozens of pages of reference materiel numbers and thousands of pages of war diaries to convince people that "feel" opposite without references..then it's pointless. No matter what I do can convince people who has their mind set opposite. I could even drag actual members of Arty Corps FOs and Infantry during 1944 to testify and people would still complain. Go figure.

Cheers,

M.S.

[ October 21, 2002, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

[Vilho Nenonen]

Originally posted by tero:

I had a crack FO gets a 6min delay when shifting fire from TRP some ~100meters. For example. Does not seem to be overly better than the one I mentioned.

Yes, 6 minutes is a bit slow, but still realistic. My problem is that sometimes the fire is shifted in less time it takes the shells travel in the air.

If you can show conclusively the average responce time under all conditions (including the topographical preparations) and regardless of the organizational level for Allied and German ordnance types was 1min into non-TRP locations anywhere in the map then so be it.

This is exactly the main point here. If someone is to bombard a location with that speed, it's going to be a half-blinded. I'd like to hear the level of precision there was in the american/whatever army too. If you people could tell me the exactness figures and we could compare them? Starting from the facts that in what precision did your FOs submit data for a battery, how exactly did the battery know its location and how accurately was the north known.

Furthermore, only one TRP should be a spot where the battery is set at the beginning. It takes time to redirect even if you have your calculations made. This could be too minor a detail.

I know this. I know better than that. The experience level is not the issue. Overall, my elite überFinns are elite enough. It is just my elite Germans get preferential treatment while my elite überFinns get the shft.

I'd take this as batteries firing without too much care. I wouldn't need speed but better accuracy.

(BTW: registered targets could also include friendly positions. Friendly positions as well as TRP's were noted on the fire plans for safety reasons and at times fire was called in on friendly positions to contain break ins or to facilitate counter attacks. Since the exact general location of the friendly positions was known they can be said to be TRP's).

Only if there's been time to make calculations. Even if you know the correct position of a goal, it takes some time.

The ability to direct multiple batteries by a single FO was an added bonus of the korjausmuunnin. It was every bit as useful in facilitating and speeding up the fire direction when directing single batteries. It was/is not used by the FO at the FO location, it was/is used at the battery calculation team. I saw it being used this spring during my refresher training and the procedure is something like this: the (not necessarily called in by the FO) target spot is pinned on the map overlay, the rotary dial is set and the firing solution is read from the edges. A light mortar battery can do a 180º turn around and gambit on the new target in under 2 or 3 minutes.

2 minutes is the optimal time even if the battery is travelling and the fire command comes. For 120mm it takes that 2 minutes if ready. For any given target, not just TRPs. The procedure you explained takes wind and other sorts of ballistic adjustments into consideration, which are not small. A mortar shell thrown to 5km can easily be blown 200m away by wind.

After butting heads on this with Andreas among others I learned for example the Germans and the Allies in France did not have accurate 1:20 000 maps of the area of operations available to them while I knew the Finns had such maps.

What?!? No maps? How the hell did they operate?

And I trusted the tape measure approach of the US Army was being taken into account when you did the modelling. I bet you had not even heard of the existence of the korjausmuunnin at that time.

Would you care to illuminate me about this tape measurement thing?

I knew the artillery procedures of both the Allies and the Germans differed from the Finnish one. Since the CMBO model was made to model these there was nothing major to gripe about apart from the barrage shell fall pattern, fire type and density.

Certainly differed, but how much is the question. I most certainly would like to know if the proper directions were established from the sun or stars and to what extent.

[Vilho Nenonen]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

That achievement we definitely think as victory.

I don't. I feel shameful that we lost, but that might be even more arrogant.

Every eyewitness account says that when Finnish artillery was available and was used, it was quite decisive. Plenty of references have been quoted but I don't recall any sources to oppose that.

Best eyewittness that I recall is one red officer who after the war was amazed that when our fire was so accurate and dense why didn't we shoot more and completely wipe them out. In one day of bombardment in Taipale, soviet artillery dropped the same amount of shells as the finns did in the whole winter war in that location. Fortunately that lesson was learned.

No matter what I do can convince people who has their mind set opposite. I could even drag actual members of Arty Corps FOs and Infantry during 1944 to testify and people would still complain. Go figure.

It's hard to convince people. If you told them that the basic confrontation was a finnish company against a batallion or regiment of russians and we continued to beat the opposition, they wouldn't believe that. We are most certainly victims of our national propaganda or something.

[Vilho Nenonen]

Originally posted by tero:

And the US Army is on record about how the Germans did learn from Finns the proper use of mortars in woods by trailing the mortars 200m behind the units and use a trailing line to indicate distance to the mortars from the FO unit. When targeting the FO would simply add 200 (or what ever the distance was as indicated by the line) to the distance and the mortar fire would be spot on the target.

If that's what they learned, then I must say that the lesson is only half-learned. Proper combined action between light mortars and infantry doesn't require the mortars to be exactly behind. The distance and direction from the FO must be elastic and based on circumstances. But basically, that's how lyhytkanta works, which is most excellent for fast infantry action.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Vilho Nenonen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sardaukar:

That achievement we definitely think as victory.

I don't. I feel shameful that we lost, but that might be even more arrogant.</font>

[Nabla]

Originally posted by tero:

During The Continuation War, the technically high firing efficiency of the Finnish artillery could not be fully utilized due to the lack of needed communications equipment.

Can you tell if that "fully utilized" refers to actual, tactical level (CM level single battery) fire missions or massing larger concentration of fire from multiple batteries on point targets under a single FO ?

And while you are at it can you please translate and post a section on fireplans, co-operation with the infantry units and other relevant procedures.

I haven't received my copy of the final game yet (damn the postal service), so unfortunately I've got the time to type.

Seriously, I am quite happy to dig up different types of information regarding Finnish troops, but at this time I will do so if the questions are relevant for the next possible patch. That is, if the hypotheses are well focused, limited, and might actually be changed in the game. Like whether the FOs had radios or not, and whether PzIVs were used or not.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

I remember a time when Steve cathegorically denied there was any evidence around on the differences in optics quality. Lo and behold, there are different levels of optics now in CMBB and nobody cries "national bias, national bias".

Yet another classic "Teroism" post As often is the case, you are looking at things in a black and white way and are in fact wrong.

What I always said was that in CMBO's timeframe the optics were pretty much on par with each other and/or were adequately matched to the gun system's performance abilities. We routinely dennied any and all requests for making the Germans "better" without substantial evidence. By substantial I mean quantitative and qualitative data. None was presented and therefore no changes were made.

What you have chosen to forget is that I have *always* said we would have to do something for optics on the Eastern Front and any other game that was prior to CMBO's timeframe. The reason is that the differences in optics was too great and important.

The problem is that hard data on optics systems is a bit hard to come by. But Martin spent a lot of time combing through various sources and worked with Charles to come up with a scientifically based system for accounting for optics. We did not just assign +1 modifier to German tanks and a -1 modifier to Soviet ones.

Although our data is not as good as we would like it to be, it is probably the best it can be. It is also likely to make CMBB more realistic with this data than if we had either guessed or done nothing.

What you (Tero) consistantly can not grasp is that "national bias" is what you generally advocate. What we advocate is "national differences" based on quantifiable and qualitative research. For you this is very difficult to swallow since you have consistantly rulled out all "Western" research as being flawed, biased, and not applicable in any way (even comparatively) with anything Finnish.

And here we are once again defending the correctness of not introducing national bias into our simulations. It is the ONLY right way to do it. I am not saying that the game is perfect, and never will, but your record of misunderstanding the game and historical reality shows that you are far from perfect as well.

Steve

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

What "manouver" units ? Only one armoured unit in the Finnish army. And no APC's. Most of the rest used bicycles, horse transports or were on foot.

Just to clear up this point, The manouver in 'manouver units' refers to their tactical use, not their mechanization, so in the case of the Finns these would be ski units, or even plain jane infantry where there was no snow (think about units bypassing the enemy advance and swinging round to cut them of at the rear, these units are definitly manouvering ).

[Battlefront.com]

Vilho,

Certainly differed, but how much is the question.

That is indeed the question. It is also the kind of question Tero likes to avoid having to answer. For him it is good enough to read an account about how great Finnish artillery is and then to jump to the conclusion that it is overall better than everybody else's artillery.

For Tero, it is a simple matter. Finns have a kerhdujabooboo thingamabob. This made Finnish artillery fire better than before when they didn't have it. Did other nations have the kerhdujabooboo device? No. Then that means the Finnish artillery should be superior.

This is of course nonsense.

Description after description from Finnish history books apparently tells us that Finnish artillery alone was good enough to stop Soviet attacks cold. That clearly shows Finnish artillery is superior because, well... just because! The fact is that you can look at any number of Western and Eastern front battles and see the same. In one battle during the Ardennes offensive artillery alone effectively destroyed the 12th SS Panzer Division over a period of a couple of days. On the Eastern Front the artillery bombardment preceeding Bagration wiped out the frontline positions of an entire Army Group.

What do descriptions like this prove? Artillery is powerful and if used correctly very effective. What else does it prove? Nothing.

My two examples from Western and Eastern Fronts might show that artillery is really nasty, but the two nation's artillery systems couldn't be more different. Therefore, one has to look far deeper to figure out how they work in a CM sized battle.

Steve

[TN]

Finally, I received my password so that I can participate in the conversation ! I read the whole thread with great interest, and was truly blown away by the level of conversation on this forum.

Oddly enough, I don’t have the game yet and the demo graphics don’t work at all on my laptop (CMBO demo works fine). Therefore, I’d like to limit my remarks to some historical details that have been discussed in this thread.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

,

>This is of course nonsense.

>

>In one battle during the Ardennes offensive >artillery alone effectively destroyed the 12th >SS Panzer Division over a period of a couple of >days. On the Eastern Front the artillery >bombardment preceeding Bagration wiped out the >frontline positions of an entire Army Group.

>What do descriptions like this prove? Artillery >is powerful and if used correctly very >effective. What else does it prove? Nothing.

Yes and no. Examples of prepared offensive fire plans reveal only that with enough guns and shells, you can achieve very impressive results. They do not tell anything about the level of artillery practice in each country. That should be measured by their response times, flexibility and accuracy in fluid situations.

Previously, somebody posted an excellent link to a page on British RA practices during WWII, arguing that the überFinns were notso hotso after all. I was duly impressed by the RA capabilities, especially their ability to concentrate more than a 1000 guns to a target of opportunity.

The quick concentration of fire was also a feature of the Finnish system. The heaviest concentrations put into the hands of a junior lieutenant FO for a single target in 1944 were something like 18 battalions (that’s Psto to Finns out there).

One difference between Finnish and British practices was noticeable, however: The Royal Artillery FO made his corrections usually relative to BT (Battery-Target)-line. This was the method used by Finns as well until 1943. In this method, the FO in his foxhole has to take into account three things: The position of the target, the position of the firing unit, and his own position relative to the BT line.

The ûberFO of the Finnish army from 1943 onwards made his corrections relative to the OT (Observer-Target)-line. In this method, he didn’t have to figure out anything but his own position, and the range and direction to the target. He made his corrections relative to that, and “Korjausmuunnin” and some clever things done by people in a (relatively) dry, well-lit and safe environment of the artillery firing position took care of the rest. All the FO needed to do was to call fires and report the range and direction of impacts relative to the target as seen from his viewpoint.

Here’s a direct quote from that RA site:

“In 1950 Target Grid Corrections were adopted for ranging. This meant that corrections were ordered as distances around the line observer-target (OT), Left or Right to get ranging shells onto OT, then Add and Drop to bracket the target. GT or any arbitrary line could also be used if required. Observers no longer ordered a BT range and switch. With this change the British soon dropped the use of zero lines and adopted ‘real’ grid bearings. ”

So the Finnish artillery used already in 1943 a method that wasn’t adopted by the RA until right before the Korean war. So yes, I think we can say that we were at least a little ahead.

As mentioned, preparation is the key in the artillery. Without ballistic and meterological preparation and accurate positioning it doesn’t matter how many guns you have.

Then the Soviet methods: The Red Army was very good in preparing firing plans for attack. Massed artillery needed to be brought forward and every battery needed to be ranged into their prearranged targets (which inevitably revealed the imminent attack). When the preparation began, each target point was covered by fire according to plan and schedule. Their problem was their relative inflexibility. The Germans were able to avoid artillery preparation entirely in several occasions by pulling the majority of their troops to a back-up position. Then the Soviet hammerblow would fall into empty space. As far as I know, the Soviets also had problems with concentrating the fire of several units into one place under one FO. It was more usual to have one FO for each battery.

It would be interesting to read more about German and American methods in this regard.

Then some notes about other things that have come up in the discussion:

Artillery seems to be a difficult thing to model in all computer games. That’s because it is a very effective factor in the modern battlefield, and has been so ever since the practice of indirect fire became possible. If there truly is a significant time difference in the game between an FO with a landline and an FO with a wireless, then I think that’s a little off. A landline is more easily severed, but when the signal gets through, there is no time difference in making adjustments. Maybe there should be something that would cause the landline FO to randomly revert to an infantryman status if their vicinity is shelled heavily (i.e. the commo wire is broken). Slowness of adjustment is not the best way to model the weaknesses of landline communications, because the drawbacks were more in the mobility (not immovable, but max only 50 % of the infantry speed) and communication vulnerability.

As for the StuG introduction date, all people advocating the later introduction dates are IMHO correct. January 1943 is impossible, because the vehicles were not in the country yet. After their arrival in Sept. 1943, the reason why they were not used in battle before 1944 is that the Finnish armoured division was the Supreme HQ’s main reserve unit which did not really see battle as a division at all before June 1944. If the Soviet Union had attacked earlier in 1944, the StuGs would have been used.

Then, the availability of heavy tanks to the Finnish side, even though they may have been available only in ones and twos. In reality, all these tanks (KV, SU-152, T-34, T-28) belonged to a same unit (Heavy Tank Battalion of the Armoured division). So the most realistic alternative historically would be to make all tank models owned by the Finnish army available in an engagement, or no tanks at all.

Steve’s historical account of the Finland’s wars was great ! The only thing I’d like to add is that the situation was quite different when Finland sued for peace in 1940 and 1944. In 1940, the Russian attack continued right up to the armistice (and even after that since they stopped shooting an hour later than the Finns. Lousy Soviet watches, maybe ?). There was a real threat of breakthrough and collapse. since all reserves of men and materiel were already committed. In 1944 it was a different story. Finland realized that Germany had lost and Finland needed to get out before it collapsed and the Soviet Union would have the time to concentrate on other things. But militarily the Soviets had been fought to a standstill, and their last attack in August had ended in the destruction of two divisions in Ilomantsi forests. That’s probably why Finland got almost the same terms as in 1940 with only a couple of differences.

Rgds,

TN

[ October 22, 2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: TN ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That is indeed the question. It is also the kind of question Tero likes to avoid having to answer.

Not at all. Unfortunaltely so far much of the contributions have been on the issue of überFinns vs the World, not artillery practises of the different armies and their differences/similarities during WWII.

For him it is good enough to read an account about how great Finnish artillery is and then to jump to the conclusion that it is overall better than everybody else's artillery.

No. I read several accounts describing all and draw the conclusion there were similarities between the Finnish arty and the arty of Kerplakishtan but that they also did things differently compared to each other. Then I compare the notes to the way arty is being modelled in CM and I make a further conclusion there is something amiss in the way the Finnish arty is being modelled in CMBB.

Since I know there are certain things (like shell fall pattern and density) that are untouchables in the model the only thing that can be affected by lobbying is the delay.

So far there has not been much data on what factors were taken into account when the delay was originally being modelled except the form of communications and the organizational level. I'd love to know for example if there was quantifiable and qualitative research done on the topograhical services of the Western Allies and the Germans and how that compares with the Finnish topographical service. I know the Red Army did a lot of work mapping out the enemy positions before operations.

For Tero, it is a simple matter. Finns have a kerhdujabooboo thingamabob. This made Finnish artillery fire better than before when they didn't have it. Did other nations have the kerhdujabooboo device? No. Then that means the Finnish artillery should be superior.

It is not that simple and even I know it. Stop being a condescending ass.

How relevant do you, as a game developer and a historian, think the accuracy and availability of accurate maps were to tactical level operations and execution of artillery fire missions ? Have you done research on how the different armies went about obtaining their maps and how accurate they were ?

The Finnish army had accurate 1:20 000 maps on the most vital areas of operation already before 1939. The entire Finnish artillery doctrine was geared up towards the ability to utilize to the fullest these accurate maps. The aim was to be able to deliver accurate fire on any location on the map from any battery/battalion position in the map in the shortest amount of time possible.

Furthermore the Finnish army was capable of producing and distributing to the troops adequate maps of unsurveyd areas within 48hours from the recce flight.

I also know later into the war the Soviets used quite a lot of time and effort on the topographical issues when planning their operations. The only difference to the Finnish practises I know of was their relative inability to utilize their topographical data when the situation became volatile and they started advancing and things did not go accoding to plan. They did have the ability for quite fast and flexible responce but that seems to have been reserved to suppress enemy FO's and other dignitaries using radio transmitters in the combat area rather than countering the counter attacks conducted by the enemy. For that they seem to have had a different pool of resources which less agility to respond. The main concern for the Finns during counter attacks was act swiftly and not to let the Red Army infantry dig in, not the artillery barrages the Red Army could muster at short notice. If the counter attack was too late there would be serious troubles and success (if any) would come at a much higher price than it would come if the counter attack was swift.

How were things done in the other armies with regards to mapping ? And what was the timeframe ?

The Germans are on record for complaining how they did not have any decent maps of the Soviet territory in 1941. How about 1942 or 1944 ? From how the arty delays are modelled in CMBB I have to conclude this particular field was not considered to have been of much significance.

Description after description from Finnish history books apparently tells us that Finnish artillery alone was good enough to stop Soviet attacks cold. That clearly shows Finnish artillery is superior because, well... just because!

The fact is that you can look at any number of Western and Eastern front battles and see the same. In one battle during the Ardennes offensive artillery alone effectively destroyed the 12th SS Panzer Division over a period of a couple of days.

On the Eastern Front the artillery bombardment preceeding Bagration wiped out the frontline positions of an entire Army Group.

And the Soviet barrages pulverized the Finnish positions at the start of the summer offensive. After that their fire missions were quite heavy but could not pulverize the Finnish positions (they had not preplotted in their maps !) with quite the same efficiency. Most of their success with artillery came from firing at delayed counter attacks. The artillery slug fests after Viipuri had fallen ended up in favour of the Finns.

BTW: can you give any examples of Germans using their artillery in this manner ? They are after all a major player in the CM scope.

How large were the Allied target areas and what were the number shells being fired over how long a period of time ?

The Finnish arty was massed on highly localized point targets no more than a couple hectares to for a short period of time to prevent local attacks from taking place. They were not normally used to suppress troops in larger areas. That would not have been very cost effective.

The Western Allies had their Ultra and the Soviets their own intel operations going. Were the Western Allies and the Soviets willing or able to utilize their high level intelligence data in real time to mass artillery on point targets ?

My two examples from Western and Eastern Fronts might show that artillery is really nasty, but the two nation's artillery systems couldn't be more different.

And since they were THE major players in the military world their systems are the only ones that should be used as a yard stick ? Any system not complying with the priciples set down by them are insignificant and can be bypassed ?

The basis of both of them was crushing weight of fire. The US was big on speedy, heavy responce in tactical (ie. CM) level, the Soviets were big on operational level concentrated deployment according to a master plan. The basis of the Finnish system was cost effective pin point accuracy in tactical (ie CM) level.

Finnish sources consider the Finnish responce time to have been overall shorter and more flexible than that of the Red Army. Finnish sources also consider the Finnish arty practises to have been better than the German artillery practises which were considered to have been unsuitable for the prevailing terrain.

Therefore, one has to look far deeper to figure out how they work in a CM sized battle.

That is rather the point. Consequently, could you be a bit more forthcoming on the arty model in the game than the game manuals are ? Figuring things out instead of getting the accurate data on it does give rise to all sorts of conclusions that are based on impressions rather than actual data.

In CM sized battle a Finnish battery (battalion IRL) would most likely be firing fire strikes or destruction fire of set amount of shells on 100mx100m targets or point targets using converging sheaf, not wide area barrages now the prevalent in the game. (Incidentaly, one Finnish artillery unit of fire was considered/calculated to be adequate for 1-3 hours of heavy fighting.)

Also, for any type of battle, even a meeting engagement style engagement, there would have been a fire plan drawn with propable target locations (suspected/known enemy positions, key terrain locations and features etc) indicated as artillery TRP's.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yet another classic "Teroism" post As often is the case, you are looking at things in a black and white way and are in fact wrong.

A bit of a hyberbole I know but still you did change your opinion when enough data was provided.

What I always said was that in CMBO's timeframe the optics were pretty much on par with each other and/or were adequately matched to the gun system's performance abilities. We routinely dennied any and all requests for making the Germans "better" without substantial evidence. By substantial I mean quantitative and qualitative data. None was presented and therefore no changes were made.

So, any and all attempts to provide and obtain quantitative and qualitative data and debate their merits on the differences in the artillery practises of different armies is basically a lost cause since you have already covered all the bases for CMBO and there is nothing that can be added to that pool of data that would make a difference in CMBB ?

What you have chosen to forget is that I have *always* said we would have to do something for optics on the Eastern Front and any other game that was prior to CMBO's timeframe. The reason is that the differences in optics was too great and important.

So in essence the differences in optics in Lend-Lease American stuff and German stuff are non-existent ?

The problem is that hard data on optics systems is a bit hard to come by. But Martin spent a lot of time combing through various sources and worked with Charles to come up with a scientifically based system for accounting for optics. We did not just assign +1 modifier to German tanks and a -1 modifier to Soviet ones.

So I have understood it.

Although our data is not as good as we would like it to be, it is probably the best it can be.

So far no major gripes in that department.

It is also likely to make CMBB more realistic with this data than if we had either guessed or done nothing.

True.

What you (Tero) consistantly can not grasp is that "national bias" is what you generally advocate.

No. You are biased by the term.

I advocate force specific differences in performance based on qualitative and quantitative differences in training and tactical and doctrinal employment and deployment of available resources.

As I see it national bias would be: "Hey, my überFinns break down under fire, BFC please fix or somefink." Or "Hey, my WaffenGrenadieres suck under heavy MG fire, please fix". And that is not what I have ever proposed.

What we advocate is "national differences" based on quantifiable and qualitative research.

Me too. Glad we see eye to eye on something. Although I seem to remember you were a bit along different lines not so long ago...

For you this is very difficult to swallow since you have consistantly rulled out all "Western" research as being flawed, biased, and not applicable in any way (even comparatively) with anything Finnish.

That is mostly because there is very little written in the English language that is from the Finnish POV, especially about the tactics and doctrine of the Finnish army in CM scale. I do contest the validity of application of facts about the Finns from German or Soviet sources because I think they are hearsay.

You did have a Finnish contingent when you did the game. And the outcome was nearly perfect. But even so you guestimated the availability of the Finnish Stugs ?!? You did not think about asking them about that ? Or post about it on the board.

And here we are once again defending the correctness of not introducing national bias into our simulations. It is the ONLY right way to do it. I am not saying that the game is perfect, and never will, but your record of misunderstanding the game and historical reality shows that you are far from perfect as well.

Who is asking perfection ? What is being questioned is the accuracy of the modelling of the Finnish FO's given the data on differences relative to the rest of the FO's in the game.

BTW: did you get to take a look at the no-show of Finnish radio FO's ?

[ham]

Good and interesting post TN, thanks.

[Moon]

Guys, please start a new thread if you want to continue discussion, I am going to lock this for UBB safety reasons in a second...

Martin

[Foxbat]

Guys, please start a new thread if you want to continue discussion

Maybe we shouldn't

[ October 22, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]