tss

killmore wrote: Since october 1941 to december 1941 Germans had numerical advantage. Make that July 1941 or at latest August. - Tommi

Did you know that you can simulate at least one Eastern Front battle with CMI with reasonably accuracy. The units are not correct but you will probably get pretty historical results in any case. The battle in question is the attack of the 30th Guards Corps on July 4 1944 at Ihantala. You should use Germans to represent Finns and Americans or British to represent Soviets. Start by making a map. Put a large 500x300 meter hill in west side, cover it with scattered woods (originally heavy woods, but the Soviet artillery has mauled it for a couple of days already) and place some victory flags on top of it. On east side of it put a couple of hundreds of meters of open and then a forest with a few roads going through it. Create two deployment zones for the side that represents the Soviets. One along the forest edge and fill it with direct fire guns and some 10-20 green artillery spotters (green to simulate the inaccuracy of Soviet artillery). The other zone is a 300x200 meter area in middle of forest. Cram this full infantry and tanks (you may have to use scattered woods so that the tanks can be positioned there). Two or three infantry batallions and 20 or so tanks will be enough. To make the Soviet side complete add 5-10 air supports to it. On Finnish side there's one infantry batallion, II/JR12. The batallion was quite worn out by the time, so you can simulate it with a crack gebirsjäger platoon (crack because only toughest guys could survive on that hill) or two and a couple of HMGs and panzerschrecks. Then, place 6 target registeration points in an even grid on the top of Soviet assembly area. Also throw some 20 or so other TRPs in nice clusters of four all over the map. Buy 63 veteran artillery batteries, 50% 75 mm and a nice mixture of 105 mm, 120 mm, 150 mm, and 120 mm mortars for rest. In the first turn order all Soviet units in the deployment zone forward after a 30 second pause. Distribute the Finnish artillery fire evenly to the 6 TRPs and fire for effect for two minutes. After that, play normally. Note: The Soviets didn't get off their deployment areas. Finns fired over 40 strikes (ranging from 60 to 246 guns) against 300x200 meter target areas. The Soviet losses are not known since the corps commander didn't dare to report the casualties to his superiors and actually falsified the unit diary to contain reports of heavy Finnish counterattacks during the next few days. The corps didn't attack Finns again and was completely refitted before being committed against Germans. - Tommi

CPT STRANSKY wrote: We are talking panthers and tigers here not light armnoured tanks. Look at Panther's side armor. A 45 mm gun could punch through it. In WWII infantry took out more tanks running up and throwing mines on the tracks etc, im 100% sure on that but ive read a dam few accounts about that happenning. More than using infantry AT accounts. Well, effective infantry AT weapons became available only in the later part of the war so it is not surprising that there are more stories about using demolition charges than Panzerfausts. Someone if they know more please post some AT info for infantry weapons. Karelian Isthmus on June '44 gives an interesting data point. When the Soviet attack begun on June 10, Finnish defenders didn't have Panzerschrecks or -fausts at all. (They were all stored behind the front) but they were quickly distributed to the front and by June 14 first psk teams were at front lines. Soviets launched a series of batallion-strength recon raids on June 9. A grand total of 5 light tanks (reported as T-26s but they probably were T-70s) were destroyed that day at Rajajoki and Valkeasaari sectors where the spearpoint of the attack was aimed. All were destroyed by anti-tank rifles since AT guns were destroyed by artillery and men with demolition charges didn't get a chance to use them. A couple of days later (June 14 or 15) faustman Eero Seppänen singlehandedly destroyed more tanks than that in one day (7 or 8, my sources are at home and once again the board search function doesn't work). In the end of June Soviets lost 50 tanks and assault guns in 48 hours to schrecks and fausts at Ihantala. I don't have figures available right now, but the ratio of tanks destroyed with demolition charges versus rocket weapons was at least 1:50 in Karelian Isthmus. (Come to think it, I can't remember reading about a single instance where an undamaged tank was stopped with a demolition charge or Molotov coctail during those battles. One immobilized Grant was torched with a Molotov coctail and about 10 damaged tanks were finished with DCs and coctails in a sneak attack at Ihantala). After the introduction of rocket weapons Finnish close-defence men certainly didn't want to go back to using thrown weapons. Their life expectancy was short enough with rockets. To me tanks just dont seem to have the impact they should. Its like hey theres a tank kill it, ok wheres the next. Don't send your tanks to area that you haven't reconned with your infantry first. Tanks were feared. They certainly were. How much of that fear was reasonable is another question. BASICALLY HOW EFFECTIVE WHERE INFANTRY AT IN WWII? In good conditions, very. The key is to pound the infantry into submission from longer distance. - Tommi

Jeff Heidman wrote: 1. Carefully analyze such factors as protection, mobility, firepower, vulnerability, etc., etc. 2. Drink beer. 3. repeat step 2 until you forget about Step 1. 4. Make up a number. See, an algorithm! Sorry, but that's not an algorithm, it's heuristics. Your loop test in step 3 is not recursive (as in primitive- and mu-recursions) so it is possible that it doesn't terminate. As Dittohead wrote, an algorithm has to be completed in finite number of steps. - Tommi

I wrote: I'm not so sure on that. Both words have been used for quite a long time ... It just came to me that maybe I should also explain the meanings of those words. In current usage "sissi" means a guerilla fighter. During WWII the word was mostly used on patrolmen who spent a lot of time behind Soviet lines doing reconnaisance and ambushing supply columns but also jääkäri companies of regular army units were sometimes called sissis, in particular those companies that acted as fire-brigades in the forest areas. This meaning for the word has been in use at least since the beginning of 18th century when sissi leaders Tapani Löfving and Pieteri Långström harrassed Russians during the "Great Hatred". (Note that, AFAIK, they both had Swedish father and Finnish mother). The word "sisu" is quite difficult to translate to English. Sisu is a combination of courage, determination, and bloody stubborness that gets a man to attack a bear with only a knife or dig through a rock of grey granite when it would be easier to just pass it. It is usually used in a positive sense but it usually includes a small quantity of stupidity. The two most exceptional sissis of WWII were Mikko Pöllä and Onni Määttänen who both received Mannerheim's Crosses. Määttänen spent a total of 171 days behind Soviet lines and Pöllä 164. Pöllä's longest patrol lasted for 46 days. - Tommi

marcusm wrote: That was a nickname (not sissy mind you). Based on the famous Finnish SISU. I'm not so sure on that. Both words have been used for quite a long time and may well be related but etymology is not my strongest field so I can't say for sure. I think (but may be wrong) that "sissi" meant originally a forester. Do you have any info site with info on individual Finnish regiments during WW2? I am looking for a particular one. I'm not aware of any. Which regiment are you interested in? - Tommi

marcusm wrote: Yes give me Finns any day not just sissi but any Finn. Take some unit of the 23rd Division and you may want to choose again. It hurts me much to admit it but we had our share of not-so-good units. Note: the 23rd Division was a poorly trained reinforcement division that pretty much crystallized when the Red Army attacked its positions in late February '40. Colonel Wolf H. Halsti who served in the neighbouring 5th Division had many interesting comments about them on his "Talvisodan päiväkirja", but they are mostly unprintable. One printable comment came from a 5th Division batallion commander whose positions were outflanked when the defence of the 23rd Division was crushed: "The Russkies are attacking outside of sector. Send me a referee." - Tommi

Fionn wrote: And as for the hurtful comment about your grandad. Jochen, IF he was in Florian Geyer (as you say he was) then any references to him shooting civies etc en masse is quite probably extremely accurate. One of my relatives fought in the Finnish Civil War (he was either my granddad's uncle or my grandmother's father, I'm not sure which one) with the White Guard. It was a personal shock when I realized that he probably took part in shooting surrendered Reds. I got over it. - Tommi

Well, it seems that this thread should be put out of its misery but I like to point out one more thing: If you are firing at soft targets with HE, high velocity can actually be a disadvantage. If the round travels too fast, it may bury itself too deep before detonating and most of the shrapnel effect is lost. How much this matters depends, of course, on the soil type and the fuse type. Also, if you need both kinetic energy and exlosive charge, you are in any case better off using concrete-busting shells that are designed to penetrate deeply before detonating. - Tommi

Mark IV wrote: Maybe not that common on the battlefield, but more bang for your CM buck. Just wait till CMII and check Finnish sissi companies. Each squad had either 9 SMGs or 8 SMGs and a LMG. And the SMGs were not some German peashooters but Suomi SMGs with drum clips and effective range up to 150 m (with single shots, of course. No hand-held weapon can fire accurate bursts to that range). They would be in a trouble in Ukrainian steppes but put them in a forest... Another good weapon allocation was used in many jääkäri companies: 1 LMG, 2 rifles, 6 SMGs. - Tommi

Rattus wrote: Since you're in Finland you can visit the Panssarimuseo in Parola any time! To tell the truth, I've wisited the place only two times (or three if you count the time when I was 5 years old). I went there a couple of months ago and I also noticed that they had moved the artillery museum nearby, also. There's certainly an impressive collection of Soviet tanks, though mainly early war models. (Including two of the surviving 3 T-28s, though only one is on display). I haven't developed the photos yet, though. I also met an old sapper there and exchanged a few words. He told that he had been in the team that fished up a T-34 that had fallen into the Saimaa Channel. It took them 3 nights to get the tank to land again while the Soviet armored spearhead was about 5 km away. It was impossible to work during the day because there were lots of Soviet "Agricultural planes" (a Finnish nickname for Sturmoviks) around. My brother went there a few years ago & took volumes of pictures so I would love to get there. Well, if you manage to visit the place some day don't forget to see the artillery museum also. When I visited it, I was surprised to see a monster mortar, model 300KRH42. Yes, that's a 300 mm mortar. Its barrel is 5.12 m long and the shell weights 175 kg. When fired it made a 2 m deep hole with 7 m diameter. The weapon was of Finnish manufacture but only one prototype was completed before the end of the war. Apparently the design was sold to Bofors. I don't know what they did with it. - Tommi

KiwiJoe wrote: Then I read about a British gun that actually had 2 inter-changable barrels, 1 short, 1 long, for each job. Nice idea but a bit slow in battle. The Swedes experimented with a field artillery piece that had two barrels. With one barrel it was a 105 mm cannon and with another it was a 150 mm howitzer. One of the prototypes was sent to Finland in January 1940 and it fired 731 rounds with the cannon barrel and 211 rounds with the howitzer barrel. - Tommi

:USERNAME:: wrote: As for direct fire guns for the last 200 years, what about the last 50? Infantry guns are gone and almost ALL arty and tank weapons have gotten longer barrels. Whats your point? You have to remember that one important reason for short barrels that were used earlier was that all artillery was horse-transported. Longer barrels mean heavier guns and more horses. The mechanization of artillery after WWII has removed this constraint. Also, the most important reason why field artillerists want to have longer barrels is longer range. Modern field guns can fire accurately to 25-30 km. Earlier only super-heavy railroad guns could do that and practically all guns had maximum ranges between 8-15 km. - Tommi

Jarhead wrote: Tss, Target Ref Point? could you please fill me in? A pre-registered artillery target spot. Available exclusively on the fortifications list with the price of only 30 points. Cheap. Allows you to fire the mortar batteries with only 20-30 second delay. Don't go to trenches without 'em. - Tommi

Today I visited the library of the Finnish Military Academy. I spent there some four hours reading old tactical manuals and regulations. The most interesting books were two manuals on using artillery. The first was not dated but it was apparently written in early 20's. The second was written in 1936. The first interesting point came when there was a discussion on destroying barbed wire with artillery. This subject has been debated quite many times on this forum so it was nice to get some figures. According to the older manual, clearing wire is the job of 75 mm guns firing with quick fuses and it takes 25-50 rounds per _meter_ of width of the breach. A two gun section would need 3-4 hours to get one breach and a four gun battery would make 4 breaches in 8 hours. Also, it was stressed that the FO should be able to see the whole obstacle or the job would fail. The newer manual states that to clear a 10x30 block of wire, 250-350 75mm rounds are necessary if the guns are within 4 km, otherwise the requirements are 350-450 rounds. Another interesting point was the job allocation for different types of artillery on attack: - 200-300 mm guns should be used against the heaviest concrete fortifications - 100-150 mm cannons should fire at distant targets (counter-battery fire, distruption at important intersections, communication centers, headquarters, and like) - 150 mm howitzers should be used to destroy pillboxes and trenches - 100-120 mm howitzers should destroy trenches and weak pillboxes. Also, they could be used to block entrances of strong pillboxes - light cannons (< 100mm) should be used only against soft targets, wire obstacles, counter-battery fire, and for destroying mg nests with direct fire. Too bad that the most interesting tactical manual ("Lyhyt PST-opas", "A Short Guide on Destroying Tanks", written in early '44) was on loan so I couldn't read it. Where was a long shelf of translated Soviet army manuals, including "Military Games for Children" and the biography of Klim Voroshilov that praised his military genius. When I was searching for the AT manual I stumbled on a flamethrower manual written in 1942. According to it flamethrowers in AT role should always be used in pairs. The first FT blinds the tank by firing at the vision blocks while the other destroys the tank by firing on the engine and exhaust vents. - Tommi

mikeadams wrote>: In future I will pick more expensive but accurate 120 mm mortars and a target reference point. Effective, fast, and relatively cheap. - Tommi

I played a 2000 point quick game against AI tonight. I played as Germans in defence and the attackers were Poles with +20% forces. In the beginning of the battle the AI sent its tanks directly to an ambush. Or, to tell the truth, I hadn't planned an AT ambush there, but the tanks came so fast that I didn't have time to retreat my rifle platoon in time. Instead, I had to stand fighting and the platoon destroyed two Shermans (one Firefly) with Panzerfausts and one Stuart in close combat, losing 5 men in process. One Sherman got through but it met my pair of 75 mm PAKs and one flanking Stuart met a veteran Panzershreck team. Apparently the AI had planned to send all his troops at the same place but revised the plans after the tanks were destroyed. This was pretty lucky since all I had on that wing were the rifle platoon, those 2 guns, and 2 PSK teams. No way they could have stopped the attack and they probably couldn't even have delayed it long enough to allow me transport my troops from the left wing. The last tank was destroyed in turn 5. Then came _nothing_ (well, except for a 140 mm artillery barrage) for fifteen turns. No sign of those Poles anywhere. Then on turn 20 a huge mass of infantry was spotted coming towards my left wing. The AI had one full infantry batallion and they advanced in a tight clump through a small forest. I had a target registeration point there. And I had 2x120 mm mortar FOs, one 75 mm artillery FO, and 2x81 mm mortars. Three minutes later the AI had lost well over 200 men of the batallion. At that point I committed my tanks into the fray and 2xPZ-IVh, 2xStuG-IIIG, and 1xHetzer together with 2 other 75 mm PAKs finished the attack. My Gerbirsjäger company didn't have to fire a shot in the battle. German casualties: 35 men (7 KIA) (The AI fired five turns with heavy artillery against a forest where I had 2 PAKs and stray rounds fell on a jäger platoon 150 meters away). Polish casualties: 436 men (~100 KIA), 3 Shermans, 2 Stuarts, 2 halftracks, 1 carrier, 1 AC, and 15 mortars. - Tommi

kunzler wrote: Trenches would not be marked on maps belonging to the enemy and therefore would not show up on the map. That depends on the situation. If the front line had been at the same position for some time, the enemy would certainly know the position of the trenches wery accurately. The firing positions for MGs and AT guns (and infantry guns) might also be marked on the attackers maps. - Tommi

DaveT wrote: Any body know of any thing WW-II on DVD Dave The new Finnish war movie "Ambush" (Or "Rukajärven tie" up here) was released on DVD some time ago. I don't know where it is available, though. Ambush is pretty good but it is nowhere close Winter War or the original Unknown Soldier. It is very loosely based on a real mission but there are only four scenes in it that really happened. As in most cases, the book ("Elämä isänmaalle") was much better, in particular because it told the real story. Also, there are some holes in the plot (Exactly how did the original reinforced platoon shrink to a single squad? Why are they cycling North when they were ordered to go South?) but these don't become apparent until second or third viewing. GIJim wrote: There is a movie out there - one of the greatest movies ever made about WWII - called Winter War. It is based upon the german/soviet actions in finland in the early stages of the war. Scratch the Germans. During the Winter War they supported Soviets and actually stopped the weapon shipments that Italians sent to Finland. (When the relations between Germany and SU grew colder in late 1940, Hitler allowed those transports to reach Finland). Winter War is pretty accurate historically and a lot of it is based on memoirs of veterans. I have written a couple of times some explanations for some scenes in it, you could try to search them. But briefly, the movie follows the war path of a company of JR23 (Infantry Regiment) through battles of Taipale and Vuosalmi. I can't remember which company was formed at Kauhava but I think it was in the second batallion of the regiment. (Had my grandfather lived 10 km to South West he would have served in that batallion but as he lived in Alahärmä he was put in an independent sapper company instead). - Tommi

Pvt. Ryan wrote: Would it be when the German tank commander blows open the bank doors so the Americans can steal the gold, or when he sells his Tiger to the Americans (even if the fuel system did leak all over the place)? Actually, I thought about the scene where a SS officer orderds the tank men to run their engines for some time. His subordinate responds to this: "Jawohl, Herr ...fuehrer" (I didn't catch what kind of fuehrer he was). The catch is that according to SS regulations the officers shouldn't be addressed as "Herr"s. (Except in the SS-Wiking division, where the division commander decided to throw that part of regulations over the wall). Oh, I love the smell of nitpicking in the morning. - Tommi

Bullethead wrote: Very. They are supernaturally accurate, able to kill sprinting grunts and stampeding trucks/jeeps at 400m and 90^ deflection. Actually, there were some snipers who could consistently hit moving targets at 400 meters. Admittedly, they were very rare and usually wouldn't be found in the middle of a heated combat. There were exceptions to that rule, though. For example, Finnish Simo Häyhä fought in many counter attacks before being seriously wounded at Kollaa 1940. Häyhä was a pretty exceptional sniper. As far as I know, he was the only top sniper in any army who didn't use telescopic sights. His reason was that with open sights he could keep his head lower and there was no possibility of reflecting sunlight giving his position off. And he could hit a man's head at 400 meters without telescopes. (Before the war Häyhä won just about all major shooting tournaments in Finland). Häyhäs official kill figure is 542 but that is seriously exaggerated. Nobody knows (not even he himself) the actual figure but there were at least 240 confirmed kills, with at least 50 before he started counting. (Note that he served in front only in the Winter War and his active sniping period lasted for only about two months, giving an average of about 5 kills a day through the time. His most effective period was 21.-23.12.1939 when he killed 51 Red Army soldiers and wounded about 15 in three days.) - Tommi

Saw the film again some time ago. I noticed that one of the Germans in it committed a pretty serious etiquette mistake. Now, ten points for the one who first points it out. - Tommi

fd ski wrote: Had they taken UK, things would have been much different. Then again, even if Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain, there still would have been the Royal Navy left. The Germans would have been able to bring only one wave of troops across the Channel before all of their shipping would have been in the bottom of the sea. If even one British destroyed had got through Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine escort rings, it could have sunk most of the invasion fleet and the British had a plenty of those. Russian Airforce did not develop any high-altitude interceptors until late 1944... I'm not an expert on Soviet planes but wasn't MiG-3 a pretty good high-altitude interceptor? IIRC, it went into service in 1941. In 1942 - Luftwaffe heavy bombers could have bombed Russia into olivion... Remember that it took until mid-late '44 before Western bombing campaign begun to have a serious impact on German war production and Western allies committed a lot more resources on that campaign than would have been available for German strategic bombing. - Tommi

marcusm wrote: Interesting Tommi, I didn't know they were used in the winter war as well. Actually, they weren't. As far as I know they were first used against the Finnish Army in summer 1943 (or was it in '42), during the battle of strongpoint Pallo near Rukajärvi. There may have been earlier occasions but I can't remember them. The sound scared the crap out of both Russians and German infantry. Nearly all Finnish sources state that when coming under Katjusha fire, the first thing that you heard was a distant clatter that sounded like someone had dropped a bucketfull of potatoes on a wooden floor. Then there came the howling noice of the rockets that ended in sudden explosions. After having been in the first barrage, the men would usually duck immediately after they heard "the potatoe sound". - Tommi

marcusm wrote: ... and they made the sound that gave them the nick name. They had also other nicknames. In addition to the Stalin's Organ name Finns called them with the name "Hehtaaripyssy" (literally, "Hectare gun") because their dispersion was so large. Also, note that Finns called the Nebelwerfers "Hitler's Organs". I also read that their targetting was much worse than the Nebelwerfers. Did they ever hit anything? Sometimes. A couple of months ago I posted here an example where the II/Nordland of the SS-Wiking Division suffered very hard losses when it got caught under fire of a 12-organ batallion. - Tommi