Jump to content

Ari Maenpaa

Members
  • Posts

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ari Maenpaa

  1. When were your christmas present books published? Latest research about the matter seems to indicate that the whole negotiation process was only a diversion from the the Soviet Union's part. Here's a Russian scholar's take on the thing: http://www.helsinki-hs.net/thisweek/48011999.html At least two Finnish researchers (Rautkallio and Manninen) have also come to the same conclusion as stated in their most recent books (both published in 2002). So the Soviet Union (= Stalin) had already decided to occupy Finland even before any territorial claims had been presented. Ari
  2. My comments: Kriegstadt against Cogust. I played the Fallschirmjägers. A nightly infantry meeting engagement with even forces in a small town. Pretty nice scenario although I don’t particularly enjoy the randomness of night fighting. Men just keep dying without clear reason which is frustrating. Played the first 3 turns. Both sides took some casualties and a look with the Allied password reveals that both of us had concentrated almost all the forces on the same side of the map. We had chosen pretty much identical method to crack this scenario. An extremely violent shoot-out would have most likely ensued in the very next turns. But unfortunately before that point Conny completely disappeared from the CMBO scene. Fluid against Mattias. I played the Yanks. Nasty scenario for the Allied player. I think the key here for the “supposed” attacker is to make very throughout recon, whereas the Axis defender should try to keep his main force hidden for as long as possible thus luring the attacker to make overly optimistic moves. The vast mine fields are poison against fast advance and coupled with TRPs they can seriously hurt the attacker’s infantry and even armor. Also because of the water obstacles the defender has some very sweet spots to place AT-guns on without fear of incoming enemy infantry. And the city roads offer great tactical mobility to the defender’s numerous SP guns. Lastly but not leastly the heavy buildings are excellent shelters against the attacker’s HE fire and also offer almost unlimited vantage points with good view. In the actual match I almost right away lost both of my Greyhounds to a veteran 50mm AT gun in a lightning attempt to KO nearby StuH with flank shots. Then my troops bumped into the mine fields and wherever they tried to close in the town, they were met by defending volksturm and sicherung troops and enemy armor. Bit by bit it cleared up that the defender probably wasn’t the underdog at all. I took the nearest flag, but the furthest one was clearly out of reach. By turn 24 my advance had almost stopped and I begun to worry about a potential counterattack, because the defender still seemed to have lots of reserves left. Anyway before committing completely on defence I decided to make one good try to the flag in the mid town and first preparations were under progress... Twin Valleys against Tuomas. I played the Brits. Interesting scenario with many options left to the attacking player. The relative freedom was refreshing after Fluid’s shackling atmosphere. From the very beginning I decided to concentrate most of my forces on the right side of the map. Well reconnoitered attack breached the defences although Tuomas’ defenders took their toll, and my tanks become relatively free to operate on enemy’s left flank. Big load of 3-inch mortar rounds helped enormously in cleansing the central forest and after that the main battle was over. Luckily one of my forward observers spotted the Hetzer before it sneaked into it’s hiding place and I knew to keep my men out of potential firing lines. I was constantly worried about possible AT guns, because the map has lots of good places for them, but fortunately it turned out that the defender has got only one. -- Thanks to all the opponents so far and particularly to Tuomas who has been the only one to finish a match with me in the finals. Cogust’s early departure was a big blow and I think that along time it affected everyone’s play, because he didn’t inform anything to anyone. Hopefully we will be able to solve the Nordic Championships with CMBB. Ari
  3. Yeah, I agree, we could resolve the championship with CMBB. Mattias disappeared from the radar couple of months ago. Said something about moving. But he has got CMBB too. Ari
  4. Yep, I agree. In fact that’s pretty much what I tried to say, but my wording could have been better. Ie. pointwise the Tiger I is an “expensive” turreted tank, but on the CMBO battlefield it has to be played like a turretless one. So a “cheaper” turretless SP gun version of the Tiger would have been very nice for CMBO gaming purposes, because the (almost useless) turret makes the Tiger I too overcosted for QBs IMHO. Particularly true in CMBO, but CMBB introduced the ARC commands which help to utilise the benefits of the turret. Also in CMBB the hull rotation have been made painfully slow (ridiculously slow, I’d say) which punishes the turretless vehicles. Ari
  5. The CMBB optics model basically gives the German tanks a small accuracy bonus on long ranges, but with several drawbacks. The luck factor is still prevalent. That's not the case. Unfortunately Many times I have hoped the Tiger wouldn't have a turret, because for my playing style that very-slow-turret is often more a burden than a benefit. The Tiger has a very nasty habit to idiotically die to rear or side turret penetrations. CMBB brought a big help in this problem by introducing 'cover arc' commands. Ari
  6. Shake that nutrient tank for me, Madmatt. Thanks for the great games, Charles. Ari
  7. Finnish books about Finnish war history. Soon we can't accuse you of ignorance Good books and easy to read. Lots of photos. This must be the shipment Steve talked about in September. Ari
  8. Silvio, Vanir B, Vanir's summary is very good, thanks. But one thing I would like to point out is that the SU-100 offers thick armor, strong firepower and great mobility in one extremely balanced and cheap package whereas the Pz IV/70 clearly lacks in mobility. If the Axis player wants such a great-in-everything vehicle he must pay at least 233 points for a Panther and the Jagdpanther costs huge 250 points. Ari
  9. Yep, the Nashorn can't take hits. In RL it was equipped to win it's duels by hitting first. And I naturally thought that "long-range optics" in CMBB would mean considerably better chances to hit distant enemies than they can hit back. Well I was wrong. Basing on the LOS tool's information and actual game experience the advantage from 'advanced optics' is in 0 - 5% marginal. And then there are the potential negative effects on short ranges... In my current game three separate regular SU-100s achieved three first shot hits on hull down targets from 1000 meters whereas a veteran Nashorn needed six shots to hit an immobilized SU-100 on the side armor from 1100 meters. The new optics model doesn't change much from the days of CMBO. Ari
  10. SU-100's frontal armor: UH: 75/50 LH: 45/55 IV/70(A)'s: SSTR: 80/curved UH: 80/10 LH: 80/14 Both have 90% quality armor. The IV/70 has mysteriously lost it's MG although it had one in CMBO, so neither one have a MG, but the IV/70 has the nahverteidigungswaffe. It must be pointed out that I'm making the comparison to the A-model of Panzer IV/70 which costs only one point more than the SU-100 (149 points against 148, both regulars). The V-model with better armor costs 164 points as regular. Ari
  11. I would say that the SU-100 is roughly equivalent to the Jagdpanther. But for some reason there's an enormous difference in the point costs. Even the Panzer IV/70 is more expensive than the SU-100 although it has considerably worse mobility and weaker gun. It seems like the tactical mobility has been somewhat neglected when the point costs were calculated. Ari
  12. SU-100 is an excellent killer. Great mobility, powerful gun with formidable armour penetration and big blast value, good sloped frontal armor, small silhouette, cupola for easier spotting and all this with remarkably low point cost. In fact currently I think the vehicle is almost dangerously undercosted. It's only downsides are smallish ammo load (34 rounds) and just a little bit longer loading time than the German 88L/71 gun has. But then on the other hand the 100mm shot has excellent stopping power. One hit is almost always enough to annihilate the target. That's a very nice feature compared to the relatively ineffective "needle puncturing effect" which is characteristic for SU-100's German counterpart Panzer IV/70's 75L/70 gun. Seems very odd to me that the latter one is more expensive of the two. Also based on couple of games and some tests it seems that the much talked optics bonus for the German tanks is actually very marginal. At one kilometer range veteran Nashorns repeatedly lost shootouts against regular SU-100s, for example. Ari
  13. I agree with all of Vanir's points. I can still remember some interesting QB maps from my first CMBO games. CMBB's generator seems to offer more generic and soulless maps. Also what purpose does the flat hilliness setting serve? Isn't such completely flat "pool table terrain" totally unrealistic? One big reason for not to use random setting for hilliness. And why should it be so hard to set the ground condition dry in QBs? "Don't play with the StuGs!" seems to be the message for the players. Ari
  14. Unfortunately I'm not so sure the step in CMBB is that big. Things like "good" optics are relative. Even if the German optics are currently modelled accurately in CMBB, what good it makes when the point of comparison, the Soviet optics model, is based on speculation. At least that's how I understand what the manual says of the subject. In fact in CMBB terms the difference between "good" (German) and "standard" (Soviet) optics is very small (at least in daylight conditions). Put a crack Tiger I and a crack IS-2 face to face 2000 meters apart from each other. The LOS tool tells that both of them have 16% hit propability against the opponent. The only real advantage the Tiger has, is it's faster firing rate, which helps to achieve hits quicker. So much for superior optics Also I haven't noticed that the "better" German optics give any advantage in spotting. I have to make more tests, but at the moment it seems that in CMBB the German advantage in optics is only marginal. Ari
  15. Sorry, dunno at the moment. But Palgrave, the publisher of the English translation, has more information HERE. Even a sample chapter. I happened to bump into the English version in the Akateeminen Kirjakauppa. Seemed to me that the book depicts Finland in the WW2 quite objectively. The main downside appears to be the relatively high price. But the book can be obtained from the libraries too. Ari
  16. Happy moving Terry. Maybe your next "post" will be in Europe? Take care. Ari
  17. Different opinions about Finland's participation in the World War II have been posted in these "Finnish threads". For those who are more interested: Professor Emeritus of history Olli Vehviläinen's book of the subject has been recently translated in english by Gerard McAlester. It's name is "Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia". Ari
  18. Thank You for the very detailed reply Rexford. It indeed seems that the cast defiency has been modelled in CMBB as an elite T-34/85 was occasionally able to kill a Panther through the front turret from 1500 meters. In the game there's also a very interesting difference between the Soviet 85 mm and German 75 mm shots. Often a single full penetration hit from the German shot ain't enough to stop the target enemy tank, whereas a single partial penetration with the Soviet shot usually knocks out it's target. Why does the 85 mm have so much more stopping power than the 75 mm? Ari
  19. Interesting topic. Great material. Thank You Paul. Ari
  20. Yes indeed, the 'Rounded' or 'Curved' bonus in CMBB seems to be notably smaller than it was in CMBO. In case it works at all. Perhaps that's intentional and historical, I don't know. For example the T-34/85 is repeatedly able to knock out Panthers from 1000 meters with hits on frontal turret where the armor is 100mm/curved. The 85's penetration on that range is 104 mm, so it seems like the curved armor surface can't affect the penetration power at all. As an additional detail it can be noted that the 100 mm armor isn't overmatched by the shot's caliber which is 85 mm only. Also the IS-2's curved turret armor is quite a soft spot too. Could it be a bug in the game mechanics? Ari
  21. Yes, luckily I can attest that Great stuff! Better to play well. Ari
  22. Thanks for your reply, Scott B. I must also explain some things. Firstly I'm not exactly a ROW vet. I participated in the Nordic Tourney and became familiar with the deliberately unbalanced scenario concept. I liked it very much. Naturally I have played lots of balanced scenarios too and read the ROWII AARs in scenario forum. Secondly, originally I got the idea of balanced B&T scenarios from some pre-RoWII thread. After playing the Nordic scenarios it sounded a bit sad. I always considered the unbalanced scenario concept (with the Nabla scoring system) as one of the best innovations in CM tournament play. Thirdly, because this is some kind of a straw poll, which will probably affect the scenario concept for the next RoW, my loud vote goes to scenarios which may potentially be even radically unbalanced. That gives some realistic uncertainty to the players. I have no disrespect for B&T's great work, but a little hope that it could evolve even more to the unbalanced direction in the future regards, Ari
  23. Well I'm all for the deliberately unbalanced scenarios. Those really breathe new life and realism into the matches. Playing the underdog side can be enjoyable as long as even some choices are left to the player. I hope the mentioned change concerning unit exiting in CMBB's game mechanics doesn't thrash that. Frankly speaking I wasn't too happy to read that Boots & Tracks scenarios were ultimately intended for balanced two player play. In balanced scanerios too much can be concluded from too little. It's too easy to know when the game is over. Not realistic and boring. Keep the deliberately unbalanced "Nabla-scenarios" in the tournaments. Thank You. Ari
  24. Thanks for the pic Jon. Some comments: Like Tero already said, the “hand drawn map” was actually a Finnish artillery plotting board called taso. The actual maps were not indeed some hand drawn doodles. The only thing which really means anything on a taso are the co-ordinate lines. Those hand drawings just make it easier to associate the coordinates with the real terrain, but they are not essential. AFAIK the drawings get added on the taso only if time permits it. The words written by constant distances are “names” in alphabetical order for making it easier/quicker to pinpoint locations in the co-ordinate. Yep, it took me sometime to realize that. After couple of Google searches I continuously bumped into general pictures of artillery boards and begun to wonder. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used such a close-up pic. So far I have concluded that the calculations to convert corrections in OT line directly to corrections in GT line were relatively time consuming. The Korja was a tool which made it possible to convert fast. As long as such tool was not in use, it was more swift to keep up a more traditional system in which the FO had information of the firing unit (at least the direction of fire) and gave the corrections based on that information. Evans states that the RA FO had to know the GT line, so it sounds like the RA actually didn’t use a Korja equivalent during WW2. Could it be that the new CP instrument mentioned in the post war section of Evans’ site is the nearest British equivalent to the Korja? -- Then some random bits of information seen in the museum. Several things have been already said, but this can be taken as a more official summary The texts are pretty straight translations. Sorry for my clumsy English. The name Nenonen refers to the father of Finnish artillery, General Vilho Nenonen (1883 – 1960). About FOs On open plains and steppes it could be possible for a battery CO to observe all targets in a battle from a single place on high ground. But in typical Finnish terrain that wasn’t an option. For this reason Nenonen attached FOs to the regular infantry formations already in 1920. About the korjausmuunnin Nenonen’s goal was to free the FOs from all calculation tasks and move those tasks to the batteries. This was accomplished on July of 1943 when he gave an order of a brand new fire observing method which was based on the korjausmuunnin. The FO was no more required to know the firing unit, it’s location or it’s direction of fire. The observer gave corrections based on his own observation direction like he would have been standing next to a direct firing gun. A single correction command from the FO could be used in many firing units simultaneously to concentrate their fire. If needed it was possible for any man to give correction commands as long as his location was known accurately enough and he could communicate the direction and distance to target or figure out needed corrections. Nenon camera On ‘20s only small areas of Finland were mapped. This was something Nenonen was concerned about, particularly because maps were needed in rapid concentration of fire from several batteries. He considered aerial photography the best means to quicken the mapping process. The map production was difficult and slow, because errors caused by a tilt in the camera had to be corrected. To speed up these corrections Nenonen asked Zeiss to build a camera, which would photograph the horizon and terrain simultaneously, but Zeiss thought it impossible. In 1928 Asevarikko 1 build such camera. And because the results were good Zeiss produced the first similar Nenon-camera in 1930. The use of aerial photos made the mapping process three times faster than what it would have been with conventional methods. On ‘30s 3000 square km were mapped yearly. During war time the rapidly produced aerial photo files were essential aid. Preparation The preparation for accurate firing in a battery was battery officer’s and calculators’ (2 men) task. Topographical factors were put on the battery board (patteritaso). Firing tables were graphical. Information from weather reports and ballistic preparation was converted to rapidly exploitable form, which was then used in the actual fire solution calculations. The battalion officer commanded and supervised the firing beside his taso. Survey and meteorological service For meteorological fire preparation there was a meteorological station at Perkjärvi already in 1923 (Perkjärvi is located at Karelian Isthmus). In 1924 a military meteorological station started operating at Viipuri (Vyborg) and it also trained meteorologists for the army. In 1924 the Survey Battery was founded at Perkjärvi for providing topographical training. In 1925 separate survey organs were established in the artillery regiments, battalions and batteries. Their task was to create a joint co-ordinate, so that the artillery could operate even without maps. Theodolites, direction circles (suuntakehä – a compass-like device), measuring cables and signposts were used in quick and accurate surveying. The operating speed corresponded to the speed of advancing infantry. FOs got binocular rangefinders. Only in the beginning of the ‘30s were the surveying devices accurate enough for solar- and astro-measuring. Ari
  25. It occured to me that the first pic of Korja may have given wrong impression of it’s size, use and purpose. AFAIK it wasn’t a plotting board, but a much smaller calculation tool. About the size of usual letter paper sheet as can be seen in the pic below. Korja in a showcase. Here are pretty self-explanatory pictures of the Finnish artillery methods: Before the korjausmuunnin. This was so called tulenjohtokorttimenetelmä (someone else may translate that). And after the introduction of korjausmuunnin. I’d like to point out that the earlier system also made dense fire concentrations and quick corrections possible, but it required more work from the FO and thus limited the actual possibilities in action. So even if the pictures don’t reveal great differences in theory, in practice it was something else. I would be interested to know the history of the RA Korja equivalent. When was it taken in use? Was it used in the prewar French artillery, for instance? We now know quite much of the Finnsih Korja, but knowing the histories of both tools would give better basis to discover possible differences. The already mentioned RA web site makes an interesting mention of post WW2 developments in RA in 1950: “They also developed a very efficient and unique CP instrument, the plotter, to provide solutions to the geometry of converting OT to BT (amongst other functions).” A pic of that instrument too would be nice. Btw. a second thought about that RNZA spotter: his correction requests must have been quite brief after all because lot of variables, which he couldn’t know, come into play as the corrections grow in range and time. The BHQ has access to much larger information pool consisting of essential factors like the changes in the wind, the ballistic temperatures, barometric pressures, the current temperature of the gunpowder and so on. This also leads to a question how any battery officer in his right mind would have been ready to take the responsibility for such mental arithmetic in actual combat situation? Just another urban legend after all? Ari
×
×
  • Create New...