tss

Geier wrote: Gimme a shopping cart, 1000£ and half an hour at Foyles... Please? Let's make that one hour. It took me half an hour to burn £135, but I spent the last ten minutes trying to decide on which book should I spend the last £15. Anyway, good luck Tommi, we expect a full report once you get back. To tell the truth, I didn't buy too many WWII books, certainly less than I planned. I didn't get past the Medieval history section... However, I stumbled on Rudel's "Stuka Pilot" and I didn't have to think twice to grab it. Well, in case you are interested, here is the complete book list with costs (in the order that they are piled on my living room floor): Norman: The Medieval Soldier (£15) Petronius: The Satyricon (£6.99) Warner: Sieges of the Middle Ages (£4.99) Collier & Manley: How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs (£9.99) Glantz: The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver - Spearhead of the Offensive (£18) (This was the last book that I chose, had to decide between it and a Keegan) Barlett: England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075-1225 (£30) Ayton: Knights and Warhorses (£19.99) Rudel: Stuka Pilot (£20) Beowulf (£7.95) Sturluson: Edda (prosaic) (£5.99) Gurney: The Hittites (£9.99) Payne-Gallwey: The Crossbow (£14.99) Costing the grand total of £163.88. (In addition to those I had to carry some 1600 pages of conference proceedings. - Tommi

Holdit wrote: It's out of print now, but if you get the chance, snap it up. The English translation has been recently reprinted as a paperback. I think that it is in the "Cassell Military Classics" series but I'm not certain. And just to inform other Finns around here: the book was translated to Finnish in 1969 with the name "Kubanin sillanpää". I don't know if it has been reprinted after that. - Tommi

Fionn wrote: Yeah, he was a nasty little piece of work wasn't he Tommi? At least if the information on the "Hassel facts" website is correct. (I don't have the url handy and to tell the truth, I'm not interested in searching it again. Too depressing.) However, given that I've read one Hassel's interview where he claimed that all events in his books have really happened to him, I tend to believe the worst of him. I don't object with a person writing WWII fiction, but when someone rips scenes word-to-word from other books and claims that they are his own experiences, I'm disgusted. - Tommi

and was even tried by a court in Denmark for impersonating a German officer during the war By Germans themselves. And, apparently, when the Germany surrendered and the Danes rushed in to free the prisoners, they saw him in a cell and locked the door again. (He had been an informer for the Germans). - Tommi

marcusjm wrote: Anyone who have read the excellent Roland Hassel books knows what I'm talking about. Ummm. The only Roland Hassel books that I'm aware of are a series of Swedish detective books (I may be wrong, Swedish literature has never been my strong area). If you mean the series of books by Sven Hassel, you should note that any connections between them and reality are purely coincidental. - Tommi

Sten wrote: 2. Very few soldiers actually participated in several major battles while still in the same organizational unit. Therefore it makes more sense to have the exp-level set from the start. I might illustrate this with one example: One of the most efficient Finnish units was the 12th Infantry Regiment that fought first at Salla and Kiestinki, then at Rukajärvi (or at least parts of it were there, I'm not certain if the whole unit was). From there it was transferred to Poventsa where it was until it was sent to Ihantala in late June '44. Under the command of colonel Puroma the regiment was used as a fire-brigade unit that led the attacks and counter-attacks. A FO Lars Holmström writes that the company of the 12th Regiment in the sector that he was positioned had lost its officers 5 times by the time (mid-43). That is, each platoon had lost its commander 5 times in the two years of the war, either as killed or wounded. (Holmström also mentions that during the fall '41, it was said that the evening prayer of the men of the regiment was simply: "Dear Lord, let colonel Puroma get his Mannerheim's Cross so that we don't have to attack at point anymore. Amen." (Puroma got his Cross on 18.10.42)). Another example would be the war-path of my own grandfather. He served the whole Continuation War (1941-44) but according to his military records he participated only in 7 battles (I think that the record is wrong and at least one battle is left out) in three areas. First, he participated in four battles (Särkisyrjä, Rytty-Leppäselkä, Tuokslahti, Saavainjoki) during the Sortavala campaign, then two battles in the Karelian Isthmus in late '41 (Pien-Kallelava, Lempaala). In these battles he was in the 37th Infantry Regiment. After that, the next real battle that he participated in was when his new regiment (58th) was caught under Soviet steamroller at Rajajoki 9.6.44. (The regiment fought a couple of battles during the fighting withdrawal to VKT-line, but for some reason they are not mentioned in the records.) Each of these battles lasted for 2-6 days, making them of similar scale with CM operations. Also, with the exception of Rajajoki, the battles are quite obscure even here in Finland. (I personally hadn't heard of any of them before starting to research my grandfather's war and I've read quite much on Finnish military). Most Finnish soldiers fought in more battles than my grandfather because his regiment was in reserve for initial parts of the war. Additionally, the losses in Sortavala campaign were so heavy (his batallion lost 244 men KIA+WIA+MIA in Särkisyrjä alone) that the regiment was again put in reserve for two months. I have to say that grandfather was very lucky to be in JR37. He was a platoon assistant-leader and in the battles he volunteered to be the point SMG man. Both roles were very dangerous and those men usually didn't die of old age. (He got two medals in '41 but the citations have been lost so I don't know what exactly he did to receive them). [This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-21-2000).]

Thanks to all for the suggestions. - Tommi

tss, I noticed that you cant start for a week. Would you be able to finish a game in 2 weeks? I guess so. I'm taking my vacation after the London trip so I should be able to do more than one turn in a day. Note that I'm in UTC +3 time zone (though my schedule is more close to UTC +0). It could be helpful if my opponent were from approximately same zone. - Tommi

I'm going on a work trip to London for the next week. Does anybody have good suggestions on bookstores that carry a lot of good WWII-related books? - Tommi

Though I've not completed a full email game against humans yet, I think I could join this competition. Note that on Saturday I'm leaving for a week long trip so it will take that much time before the game gets really on. My email address is in my profile. BTW, I think that the loser should advance, not the winner. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-20-2000).]

Germanboy wrote: Man, sounds like you had a really rough life in the army. Yup. Being a coastal artillery weatherman is a tough job, but somebody had to do it. - Tommi

KMHPaladin wrote: Jeff - come on over to the European Air War forum at Combatsim.com - we speak "Germglish" all the time! Hey, did you know dat dere ist a konfenient filter dat automatically transforms vritten Englisch into "Germglisch". It ist called, not quite surprisingktly: "kraut". Dese lines vere passed drough it, undt you kan see ze results. - Tommi

killmore wrote: In % of civilian population lost Poland would probably take 1st place it lost 1/6 of its total population (6 million) It is possible that Byelorussia lost proportionally more of its population. -Tommi

IntelWeenie wrote: IT KEPT YOU DRY WHEN IT RAINS! Exactly the same reason why I prefer the old weather sounding equipment for the new and improved one. In addition to keeping me dry, it also allowed me to listen radio and make coffee, though doing both at the same time woud cause circuits to pop. Damn, we had to make difficult choices back then. (For some strange reason my pals who were in regular infantry don't want to hear about my military service). Also, it took some skill to get radio to work inside an EMP-protected compartment when it was too cold to hold the door open. - Tommi

If manufacturing cost of flamethrower is not much greater than, say, a 20 mm gun, why didn't everybody have huge amounts of them? Because they had only limited use. Namely, they were used to take out specific fortifications when a bunker line had to be breached. The flamethrower units advanced near a bunker in cover of artillery barrage or smoke (an inclusive or here). As Blackhorse mentioned, they had too short range to be used in other situations. In a fluid battle, it was rare to get to flamethrower range. Note that in early '42 Finnish army decided to convert all OT-26 (and -130 and -133) flamethrower tanks into normal gun models because they were found to be practically useless in combat. The problem was to get near enough. The approaches to Soviet bunkers were covered by mined 'murros'es (I don't have any idea what that's in English. Basically it is a big pile of small felled trees that slows down advance) and by the time the minefields had been cleared enough to allow passage by tanks, infantry had taken the bunkers. Note also that flamethrower tanks in the West Front had better (longer-ranged) flamethrowers than T-26 based models. - Tommi

I'm not going participate in flame wars. However, one point in PraetorianXXI's post arised my curiosity. And that the Emperor Nero and from there on did use the Praetorians for battles, and thats not picking it out of my nose! Could you please give a reference source for Nero using the Praetorian Guard in battle. I would be really interested in it. I have read (and own) both Tacitus and Suetonius (the two most important approximately contemporary sources of the period) and if I remember correctly, neither of them mentioned any campaigns where Nero pesonally participated. Actually, the only sizable campaign during Nero's reign was the First Jewish War, and only Eastern troops were used in it. There were also some border clashes in Germania and some disturbance in England. As far as I know, the only time when Nero wanted to use Pratorians in battle was when Galba's revolutionary troops approached Rome. It didn't work out as the Praetorian Guard defected to Galba and Nero had first to flee and then commit suicide to avoid capture. The Praetorian Guard was not of a great use for Galba, either. After he had reigned for a couple of months, Otho conspired with the Guard and had Galba assasinated. The killers were Praetorians. The low point of Praetorians happened just after Commondus (of "Gladiator" fame) was strangled. The commander of the Guard took a part in that conspiracy and apparently by his initiative Pertinax was nominated as successor. However, Pertinax was too big a miser for the Praetorians so they murdered him. Next, they held an open auction on the emperor's title, promising to support the candidate that gave them most money. Julianus gave the highest offer and was nominated as an emperor. However, when news of this reached to the legions in the borders of the empire, _three_ armies revolted. When the first emperor candidate, Septimus Severus, approached Rome, the Praetorians were really quick to switch sides and abandoned the emperor that they had sworn to protect. After killing Pertinax, Septimus Severus disgraced the Praetorian Standards because of their actions. - Tommi

DrD wrote: In fact it was the Swiss pikemen who were the first infantry to regularly beat knights back in the 14th century, even before Agincourt and Crecy. I think I could give a few good book references for the minitary history of the 14th century: Kelly DeVries: "Infantry Warfare in the Early 14th Century," ISBN-0-85115-5715 J.P.Verbruggen: "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages", ISBN--0-85515-5707 The Verbruggen's book is a quite massive tome on all aspects of warfare of the period while DeVries's book is more analysis of a number of battles where the infantry played major role. - Tommi

Fionn wrote: SchwereKitchensinkgungswaffe Sdkfz 250/111 Ausf F Surely you mean: Schwereküchewaschbeckengungswaffe (Note: I learned my Germany from WWII comics. So if you think that I know what I'm speaking of, you're seriously wrong.) - Tommi

Törni wrote: I spend some 12 months on warzone in the Middle East and witnessed the results of 105mm and 155mm Israeli arty. A close hit to a a wooden structure would definately collapse it. Note that modern artillery is more effective than WWII artillery. A WWII vintage 105 mm gun wouldn't destroy a well-made wooden bunker with a single top hit. However, even a 75 mm shell could (and did) knock out poorly made bunkers. A 150 mm gun might or might not knock out a well-made wooden bunker with one hit. Two or three direct hits would certainly be enough. Artillery that was larger than that would almost certainly destroy a wooden bunker with one hit. - Tommi

I am ashamed to admit it but I thought the Sven Hassle books were true stories when i read them as a kid 8) When I first read Hassel (the second book in the series) I also thought that it was a true story. The second book started to raise doubts and by mid-third book I was certain that the author had taken some "creative licences" in the text. The final straw was the first book in the series. A penal guy defusing 200 unexploded bombs. In 1940. Yeah, sure. All and all, Hassel's "memoirs" are approximately as reliable and authentic than those of baron Hieronymus von Münchausen, with the exception that the good ol' baron was really a historical figure. - Tommi

Disaster@work wrote: Nice quote! I've heard the same thing applied to musketry in regards to its accuracy. I tried to find the whole quote in Simplicissimus but I couldn't find it. Either I missed it (it was 1:30 am) or it was in some of his other books. However, Englund gives the quote in a slightly different form: "Whoever kills a pikeman, sheds innocent blood. And whoever gets a pike wound can blame only himself; who asked him to run straight at it." I think at that time any type of wound at all was a serious risk to become lethal given the lack of professional medicine for soldiers. Yes. In particular, one would have to be very lucky to survive a hit intestines. According to Englund, least serious were shallow punctures of cold weapons. However, deep punctures would usually infect and kill the wounded. A man could usually survive a sword slash if it didn't hit in a bad place. (Being repeatedly hacked on while running away is another matter). All firearm hits were quite bad. The worst fate was to be hit by a cannonball. If it hit in torso, upper legs, or head, death was certain. A shot from a 6 lber traveling at 200 m/s had about 10 times more kinetic energy than a modern high-velocity AK-47 round and _much_ larger hit diameter. One could only survive a cannon hit if it hit on lower legs or arms and even then you would have to be lucky. The next worst were grapeshots. They would usually kill outright if they hit in the torso, but there are reports of persons surviving. A person would not usually die immedietely from one musket hit, but would instead die from internal bleeding, infection, exposure, or by being stabbed to death by victors. There are numerous records of persons that had been hit even to head but who still survived. One example was Swedish Georg Carl von Döbeln who served in Björneborg's Regiment (or "Porin rykmentti" as the rank and file called it, they were all Finns) who got a Russian shot in his forehead at Porrassalmi 1789. He survived but the wound never completely healed and he had to use a black headband for the rest of his life (though, that made him quite popular among the womenfolk) and he had severe headaches afterwards. Yes, being hit was a nasty fate in pre-WWI battlefields but if you was hit by a musket your changes to survive, while still low, were much better than if you had been hit by a cannon. - Tommi

Germanboy wrote: Of course they later claimed that they did not produce it for ethical reasons and were consciously stalling - yeah right. There were a couple of occasions where somebody was either stalling or criminally incompetent. For example, when they were searching for the correct material to use to slow down the reaction they tested lead and rejected it as unsuitable. The later examination of lab reports showed that there was an error in the calculations so that the result was a couple orders of magnitude too small. In another occasion, some of the leading Nazis were invited for a presentation. However, the invitation letters were put in wrong envelopes and nobody came. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-17-2000).]

Niklas Johanson wrote: "Tiger!" The most feared thing an allied commander could hear from his front-line troops. There's a story by a Soviet Su-76i gunner in the Russian Military Zone (don't have an url for it right now). The gunner said that the thing that they feared most was not the Tiger. Instead, they feared Hetzers much more. He said that a Hetzer could fire 4-5 (IIRC) shots before it could be pinpointed while other vehicles got only 2-3 undetected shots. The reason for this was small size and a gun without a muzzle break. - Tommi

Törni wrote: Even in 1941 as the Germans launched Barbarossa the Soviet forces were grouped for offence, not defense. They were grouped for counter-attack. The Soviet strategic doctrine was that the first line of defence will stop the enemy attack and then the counter-attack forces will retaliate and crush the aggressor. Not too bright strategy. It was mostly handiwork of the power trio Voroshilov, Mehlis, and Kulik. Their view was that on defence one Soviet division can hold three imperialistic divisions (because of the moral superiority of Soviet Union) and because no enemy can have a 3:1 superiority on the Red Army, no defence in depth was needed. - Tommi

Disaster wrote: Also, it should be added that (unlike the Patriot), melees were not common. I think it was Grimmelshausen who said: "Whoever kills a pikeman kills an innocent man." (BTW, if you haven't read his "Simplicissimus", do it). One reason why Karl XIIs army was so efficient in 1700-08 was that he emphasized attack with "cold weapons", that is, swords and bayonets. His tactics was that the whole army would advance near the enemy, fire a single volley, and charge with bayonets. As long as the enemy didn't have enough artillery to decimate the Swedish army enroute, the defenders would most often turn and run when they saw that the Swedish line didn't turn back. However, at Poltava 1709 the Russians did have enough artillery and their lines didn't turn back and run (though, it was a close affair). The result was the worst Swedish military defeat through the history. And in another post: Only truly desperate or stupid commanders would launch their heavies against a resolved body of troops. I seem to remember that during the Napoleonic wars only once was an infantry square broken by a cavalry attack and that was a freak accident: a horse that shot stayed on its feet long enough to crash on the front row and created an opening in the line. Admissions to the Invalides in Paris in 1762. 68.8% to small arms 13.4% to artillery 14.7% to swords 2.4% to bayonets. However, artillery hits were lethal more often than musket wounds and that skews the table somewhat. I have no idea how much. In "Poltava" Peter Englud mentions some skeletons that were found in the battlefield. It was noted that in nearly all cases where sword marks were found in the bones, the hit had come from back and up. That is, a cavalryman had hit a fleeing soldier. Also, all bodies that had bayonet wounds had also other wounds suggesting that they had been killed while helpless from other wounds. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-17-2000).]