tss

Holdit wrote: I'd start with something like "C++ for Dummies" and see how you get on with that first. I'd say that is a _bad_ idea. If you are going to teach yourself something as complex as C++, you should start with a good, complete, and, most importantly, up-to-date book. Quickly browsing throuh http://www.accu.org book review sections I found only four modern C++ books that were recommended to beginners (I've read only Stroustrup (very good, but heavy) so I can't comment on the others): - C++ Primer 3rd ed by Josee Lajoie & Stanley B Lippman - C++ Primer Answer Book by Bruce Leung & Clovis Tondo - C++ Programming Language 3rd ed, The by B Stroustrup - C++ Solutions - Companion to The C++ Programming Language Third Edition by David Vandevoorde Tommi

This is very offtopic, but I want to give a few hints. First, I don't think anybody should try to learn C++ as first programming language. The language is simply too huge for that. As my teaching assistant put it a couple of years ago: "C gives you enough rope to hang yourself. C++ gives you enough rope to make rigging on an old clipper and you still have enough left to hang your whole family and dog, too". I'd suggest that you try some simpler language first. I've heard that Python is a nice language for beginners (I haven't studied it myself). Another good candidate is Scheme though some say that it has way too much parenthesis. (I learned programming with Scheme, using Abelson&Sussman's excellent "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs") Some people say that Java is a good first language but I disagree on that. Sure it looks simpler than C or C++ but it has its idiocies. In particular, the way that everything is an object, except those things that are not, annoys me. - Tommi

aka_tom_w wrote: how many copies of the Linux CM would they actaully sell vs. how many more would be copied by Linux users who think that all software should be free. Well, they would sell at least one. To me. Nowadays the only reason why I boot to Windows at all is to play games. CM, in particular. (Due to an interesting mishap my Win98 refuses to acknowledge that there are more than 512 megs of hard disk space and I can fit only one game in there). As other posters have pointed out, GPL and pirating are two wholly different things. I have written GPL:d software myself and use free tools whenevenr possible but I still think that the author of code should have right to decide how it is distributed. I'm lucky to be in the lucky position that I can release my software under GPL and still make a living (being a graduate student with a grant). Not all programmers can do that. - Tommi

CavScout wrote: A commander can "order" anything but the question is would the soldier follow it. Soldiers are highly unlikly to follow a "suicide" order unless under a very dire circumstances. Actually, they will follow suicidal orders surprisingly often. I have read _many_ accounts where men were ordered to do something stupid and they actually tried to do it. One of the worst examples was when a Finnish captain didn't want to delay his advance by waiting for artillery to catch up and decided to attack across a kilometer-wide marsh. After the first attempt to cross it had ended in a spectacular failure. Even after being explicitly ordered not to do it. Guess what, his men followed him across the marsh even though they all knew that there would be a big trouble on the other side. The company lost about 100 men there. The worst thing about this event was that the captain was not court-martialled. - Tommi

Topi wrote: While serving in the Finnish artillery, we were taught that, yes, in principle you can clear minefield by a concentrated artillery barrage, but you need such a heavy shelling that it is almost never worth the effort. Thus far I have posted twice the figures for mine clearing from a Finnish artillery manual that was written in 1936. One link is http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008993.html . - Tommi

tero wrote: The Germans actually used these kinds of tactics. They would drive along leisurely and when they came up on a location that looked like an ambush or defensive position they would stop and speed back trying to lure the defenders into thinking that they had been spotted and open fire to expose their positions. Well, there's a little difference between that and driving at full speed near all possible enemy hideouts. But yes, suicidal tactics were sometimes used in the real life. At Vuosalmi in March 1940 Soviets once tried to get Finns to open fire with their MGs by sending a cavalry platoon to ride in full gallop in clear view of the Finnish lines. Not a job that I would like to do. Unfortunately, I can't remember whether they managed to find the MG nests or not. - Tommi

Hey PawBroon, for some reason my emails to you keep bouncing back, saying something about unreliable connections. - Tommi

Jarmo wrote: If I can stuff a HMG team of six men into a Kubel, why not 2 snipers? You have to fit also their egos there, and THAT takes a lot of space. - Tommi

PawBroon wrote: In any case, I'm willing to receive any early in the game surrendering to alleviate the process. Well, I think that you should surrender right away or face a court-martial for shooting your own countrymen. See, you are in a lose-lose situation. - Tommi

WendellM wrote: I look forward to exploring them, and even having ahistorical fun with them - the Finns or Rumanians capturing Red Square/the Kremlin; Well, that's not so ahistoric if you broaden the scope of CMII somewhat. There was a quite big number of Finns along with Jacob de la Gardie (who was a Swede with French ancestry) who took his army to Kreml in the early 17th century (1611?). Though, I can't remember for certain whether he fought against Russians or Poles; the Russia was in quite a big confusion after the death of Ivan the Terrible. - Tommi

Jarmo wrote: I heard this also. They are finally going to include a campaign mode as well. "Guide your men through hundred years of combat". I think they are thinking 4 battles/day plus night fighting. Ahh, that wouldn't work, since there were only a handful of major battles in that war, and BTS knows that grognards would tear the game apart if they put 182500 battles in the Hundred Year War. Instead, they chose to make a game on the War of the Roses. In particular, they have only one campaign in it, namely, the siege of the Harlech castle. It will be a RTS with 1:1 time scale, with no pause or save game feature (to add realism). The game will come out on April 2001 so we will get the first full-campaign AARs sometime in late 2008. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 09-06-2000).]

Walter wrote: Oh, and here's my edit 1) a sniper does not switch to another weapon that he's *never fired before* when going up against another master sniper I agree. Though, he may take an enemy weapon and test it to see whether it is better than his own or not. This could happen relatively often, at least when both armies used interchangable ammo. For example, the Finnish master sniper Simo Häyhä sometimes used captured Soviet sniping rifles to test them. This didn't happen very often since he preferred to fire from open sights because that way he could keep his head lower. BTW, Häyhä had one sniper duel with a Soviet sniper. The name of his opponent is not known (at least, not here in Finland) but he was pretty good. After the Soviet sniper had killed three Finnish officers in two days (IIRC), Captain Aarne "The Terror of Morocco" Juutilainen ordered Häyhä to get the sniper. Häyhä spent a whole day lying in the snow and trying to find the sniper but without success. Finally, when the Sun was going down, its light reflected on the telescope sight of the Soviet sniper who had decided to leave his position. Häyhä shot a quick shot at the glint and killed the sniper. - Tommi

Teamski wrote: It's a well known fact that Russian pilots rammed German aircraft quite simply because they were drunk on Vodka. No lie! Well, I'd guess that a pilot on Vodka would have a pretty difficult time trying to hit enemy planes. On subject of flying while drunk. The German Ace Helmut Lipfert (a little over 200 victories) tells in his memoirs that while they were stationed in Crimea (1943, IIRC) their field was near the great Champagne storage that contained tens of thousands of bottles. He said that they drunk a lot of it and sometimes even flew drunk. He also mentioned that while he felt invincible, he never got a single victory while drunk and was almost shot down many times. - Tommi

Germanboy wrote: I am not sure whether that is not one of the endearing myths of the war. Any evidence? Seeing that a lot of casualties came from ID fire I would think that experience did not really matter that much (just surmising, but that's what I think you did too). The Finnish experiences of the last month of Winter War was that green troops would have horrible casualty figures when they were thrown to line (and at the time Soviets relied almost completely on artillery and tanks). I'm not certain how much of this can be attributed to poor training compared with lack of experience. There are a couple of interesting data points, though. Several batallions were transferred from North Finland to Viipuri Bay area. Those units were well-trained and had two months of experience of fighting in forests. However, they too had very heavy losses at Viipuri Bay because they were not accustomed to that kind of war. However, I'm not certain how well their losses would have compared with well-trained units that had fought the whole war at Karelian Isthmus, since almost none of those experienced troops were sent to Viipuri Bay (the defence of the area was more or less improvised from second and third rate troops) and conditions there were worse than in other parts of the front. - Tommi

Major Tom wrote: Having AT teams move into forward positions during a defence isn't gamey. I agree completely. However, using them as advanced scouts in an attack IS gamey. There is no reason for an AT team to be ahead of the force when you are on an attack, This I don't agree completely. I can think of situations where the first unit would be an AT team. For example, if the attackers knew that there were few tanks that could cover the main approach route with their fire, it would be logical to send in a couple of AT teams to sneak in and ambush the tanks before the main attack. I just finished reading M.O. Matilainen's memoirs. He served as a squad leader in II/JR8's machine gun company but he also often fought as a SMG gunner with infantry (BTW, Väinö Linna who wrote "The Unknown Soldier" served in another MG company of the same regiment). The batallion's attack was once stopped by three Soviet tanks that could cover the attack avenue. Just before the next attack started, Matilainen carried an AT rifle to an open cliff that was in front of Finnish positions and destroyed one tank with it (it took 4 hits: two hits to turret failed to penetrate the armor, one hit tracks, and the last penetrated lower hull). The rest tanks then withdrew and the main Finnish attack could start. Matilainen had to do that alone because the crew of the AT rifle refused to advance to the cliff because there was no cover at all. Note that I'm not at claiming that AT teams were regularly used as scouts, as they weren't. In the example I gave above Finns already knew where the tanks were and I think that was true in nearly all cases where an AT team was sent in first. Also, Matilainen's feat was quite extraoridinary and it was perhaps the most important reason why he received a Mannerheim's Cross in May 1942. - Tommi

Now I've definitely reached the point when I should stop working and go home. I just read the title of this thread as: "Infantry Turing ratio". Now I'm wondering whether finding a winning strategy is decidable or not. If it is, it certainly is not elementary. - Tommi, punning may way through theoretical computer science

Olle Petersson wrote: I've heard about this too. The idea came up after some rats (or was it mice?) had gnawn off wires in some Soviet tanks, causing short circuits and engine fires. And you should also not forget the penultimate US weapon: flying bat-bombs ("Holy flying bat-bombs, Batman"). The idea was to strap a diminutive incendiary charge to a live bat and then drop a host of them over an enemy city. The bats would then find some nice dark (and dry) hiding place in some attic before bursting in flames some hours later. I seem to remember that a few loaded bats escaped during initial tests and burned down a couple of sheds in the area. - Tommi

tero wrote: I see no need to be gun shy about this. Yes, there were very many cases where Finnish artillery started firing suddenly without spotting rounds and hit targets. But there were also cases when they missed. Off my head I can remember three cases where Finnish attack failed because they were caught in their own artillery fire (Honkaniemi during Winter War, one attack of Jääkäriprikaati in summer '44, and one JR7 attack on road to Petroskoi, though in the last case the mortar rounds actually hit the intended target but nobody had remembered to tell the gunners that it had already been captured. The 2nd Lt. who was responsible for this mistake was mortally wounded in the barrage) and one case where German SS troops were hit. Saying that, I'm still confident that Finnish artillery was among the most accurate of the war, but I'm still not certain that it was absolutely the best. One Soviet captain that was captured at Ihantala said that because of Finnish artillery, Ihantala was a worse place to be than Stalingrad. (He had been there, also). OK. Do you accept SUFFICIENTLY accurate to warrant high confidence in the first rounds being on target ? Yes, in nearly all conditions. The usual flight times were so short that the wind error wasn't too severe unless the wind was quite high. In those ranges temperature, air pressure, and humidity are the most important parameters and they could always be measured accurately. I made just some calculations that are based on my memory of a lecture that we were given in army five years ago, so don't even think these figures are accurate. (Unless, of course, someone wants to fire artillery against me. In that case, feel free to use them). The longest flight times that are now in common use are around 120 seconds (25 - 30 km). At those ranges, the maximal effect that the wind has on the shell is around 750 meters when the wind is high (I don't remember actual figures, something like 20-25 m/s). Now, using high school physics and supposing that the wind causes a constant acceleration (not true but I'm not in the mood of solving differential equations involving unknown quantities right now) we can estimate the size of wind error in shorter ranges. Furthermore, assuming that the wind coefficient is linear to the strength of wind we can estimate that in a more common (but still quite rare) wind of 15-20 m/s the error at 120s would be around 500 m. Using these figures (t=120, s=500) and the equation s=1/2*at^2, we get a=2s/t^2 = 0.07 m/s^2. Substituting this for t=20 gives error of about 14 meters. This is so small that it matters only when firing at point targets and those rounds are in any case adjusted individually so the error is not significant. For t=30 we get s=31 m. Still not high, but it may cause a strike to cover only 2/3 of the intended target area. Whether this matters or not depends on the situation. For t=40, s=56 m. With the target area being 100x100 meters, this may be significant. In some weird cases the upper wind may be opposite to lower wind. I personally encountered this once when there was ~14 m/s East wind on the ground but 20-30 m/s West wind at 2 km and above. In these cases the errors could be double of the above as well as in those cases where a tired weatherman puts up the theodolite 180 degrees wrong direction (that didn't happen to us but the NCO students did it once. Luckily it was not a "live" report). All the errors are so small that an experienced forward observer can anticipate them, for example, by firing one round at an unrelated target and calibrating the guns that way. I've seen the old method in use myself too (SlRtR 3/85) and the results were not too shabby Same place, I/95, though it was called SLRR at the time. Were you at Isosaari or did you have the possibility to enjoy the Archipelago and old Russian fortifications at "the Rock"? (In case you don't know or remember, the weather station where I was is situated in the East end of Isosaari). Yes. But I have never read of a WWII firemission being said to have been bogus because of faulty weather data. Those have always been atributed to FO error. Or in some cases to errors in gun positions. 2nd Lt. Holmström tells in his memoirs that he once directed a harrasment fire against Soviets that ended up harrassing more their own troops. The gun crew accidentally mixed up half and full charges. I too think that not many (if any) artillery barrages landed in wrong positions because of an incorrect weather report. However, accuracy of the report (estimated in the report itself in the scale of 1 to 3) was one factor on the FO's decision on whether to fire spotting rounds or not. I think the meathod they mostly used was the tested "seat of their pants" device. Yes, supplemented by a new weather report each 3 hours, day and night. - Tommi

patboivin wrote: OK so I'm dating myself, but why not put some Cylons in there while you're at it. At least their poor accuracy can be easily explained: how well would you shoot if you had only one eye that bounced around like a ping-pong ball? - Tommi

Big Time Software wrote: Correct, sewing machines were only used to keep the Germans awake late at night, and were not used for CAS missions. But they did use a lot of agricultural machines for CAS missions. Scared the hell out of defenders when a combination harvester swooped over their heads. - Tommi (Explanatory note for those that don't know Finnish military jargon: The official designation for CAS planes was "maataistelukone" ("ground fighting plane") but the men in front lines preferred to use "maatalouskone" ("agricultural plane/machine"), instead.)

*Captain Foobar* wrote: I will let you guys in on a little trick. If you are force to retreat, just have an engineer squads remove the flag, and run like hell! They cant take the victory flag, if they can't catch it! I've posted this occurrence once before, but as they say, repetitio est mater studiorum. During July 1941 a Soviet border guard company defended a heavily fortified hill against Finnish attacks in the Rukajärvi sector. They threw two attacks back with heavy casualties and were forced to retreat only after Finnish advance in other sections threatened their supply route. When the border guards retreated, the last thing they did was to raise a Finnish flag in the summit of the hill. - Tommi

tero wrote: The Finnish arty was the most accurate arty of the war. I don't know enough of artillery practices of other countries to completely agree with that statement. Certainly Finnish artillery was among the most accurate and in any case better than German or Soviet arty, but I'm not certain on its relation to Western Allies. weather data WAS accurate Using WWII methods it was not possible to always have accurate weather data. I have myself done 6-8 artillery weather reports using the old methods so I'm quite confident in saying that. First, it was not possible to obtain accurate wind data during a heavy rain. Second, the most common flight times that were used were between 20-40 seconds. For 20 second weather report you have to be able to see the Pilot balloon up to 500 meter altitude. For 40 second flight time the altitude is 2000 meters. If the cloud cover was lower than that (a pretty common occurrence), obtaining accurate weather data was impossible. I think that the first radio soundes that can be used in cloud cover were tested during WWII but I seriously doubt that they were in widspread use. - Tommi

Pham911 wrote: In actual WWII combat, how did artillery work? Others have already answered this but I'd like to elaborate a little. In Finnish army, the doctrine was that the artillery should be used in short and accurate strikes that would saturate the target area. The basic fire mode was an "isku" (strike) against a 100x100 meter target by one artillery batallion (3 batteries, 12 guns). An "isku" lasted for a minute and the guns fired as many rounds as they could in that time. So, a full strike of a 75 mm batallion would land 120 shells in the target area in a minute (with first 12 shells landing in a space of couple of seconds). Heavier guns would fire less rounds. Guns of about 100 mm would fire 8 rounds, 120 mm 6 rounds, and 150 mm 4 rounds. The artillery FO would either call simply a "strike target X" or if some other amount of ammo was necessary "fire 8 rounds at X" (with each gun). When possible, spotting rounds were not used. Usually this ment that the firing positions had to be accurately surveyed, weather data accurate, and the target up to half maximum range of the guns. The main fire mode for defence was a "sulku" (barrage). A "sulku" target was 200x100 meter area it would be (again) fired with maximum rof and last for a 1-2 minutes. In addition to artillery FOs, infantry company commanders could request barrages in their defence zones. Each barrage target had usually a flare signal associated to it so that it could be requested even when radio or field phone lines were not working. In 1943 a Finnish artillery officer invented so called "korjausmuunnin" (adjustment transformer) that could be used to correct artillery fire without having to know where the firing batteries were. After that, Finnish FOs regularly directed fire of many (in some cases over 20) artillery batallions at the same target. - Tommi

brk wrote: Hah! 105 mm FO killed 57 infantry and 2 mortars last night. I couldn't believe it. I'm buying more arty from now on... Just for fun I made a scenario where two American infantry batallions and 30 tanks were crowded into 300x200 meter area and placed six target reference points over them. For the other side I gave something like 24 FOs, most 75 mm or 81 mm mortars but with a good deal of heavy stuff also. On round four Americans surrendered with a little over 1000 casualties. Only 4 tanks were intact at that point. It was a pretty impressive firework when viewed from German side. - Tommi

Germanboy wrote: I response to something I wrote?! Wow, that's more than I ever achieved with my undergraduate students. If someone knows a fool-proof (or should that be student-proof) method for getting some response out of undergraduate students, please tell it to me. - One who has to teach computation theory to 300 future electric engineers who are _not_ interested.