tss

I remember some footage shot near Bastogne showing one of Patton's Shermans sliding downhill on the ice.... OK, I forgot about hills when I wrote my reply above. Yes, hills are a different beast altogether and an icy slope may be very difficult for tanks as there's nothing a tank driver can do to stop the vehicle when "Mother Gravity" takes a good hold of it. However, this may happen even without ice if the surface is sufficiently loose. On flat ground the driver only has to press down clutch and the tank stops after some (maybe some dozens of) meters. Then he can start of slowly and the tracks bite well in ice. - Tommi

It turned out the JU88 was from Finland and the Germans preferred to surrender to the Americans, and this was their escape. Not that I question your dad's story, but I'd like to point out that the plane couldn't have come from Finland as the last German airfields in Finland were closed (IIRC) in October 1944. However, it's possible that the plane and the troops had been positioned in Finland before retreating to Northern Norway after Finland was forced to declare a war against Germany. Thus, the 'from Finland' part could actually mean: 'flew here from Norway, but fought in Finland for most of the war'. - Tommi

Yesterday I stumbled on a new book (or more precisely, a new paperback edition of a 9 year old book) about Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union. As this was the first modern English book on the subject that I've seen, I had to buy it. The book is William Trotter's 'A Frozen Hell' and it is a general account of the war. The book is very easy to read (I've read about a half of it today) but it lacks depth. The latter property is quite understandable as the book covers the whole war and it's only about 280 pages long. I've not noticed any serious errors in it thus far. The author classifies the Italian Fiat G.50 fighter plane as a modern twin-engined bomber for some reason, but that is a minor gripe. Also, the author has the usual foreigner's approach to 'ä', 'ö', and 'å' letters, using the accents quite randomly (in particular, he seems to have used a word processor incapable of printing 'å'). Trotter captures the essence of the events quite nicely and some of his one-sentence characterizations are very accurate, for example: [About Soviet Navy] "... and, again, one must question the competence of any naval commander who orders two destroyers to tackle a battery of ten-inch coastal artillery on their own." Some other of the characterizations were not so good, for example he claimed that old French 19th century vintage fixed-carriage field guns "couldn't be fired with any accuracy" while in fact those guns were surprisingly accurate and their real problems were slow rate-of-fire (one or two shots a minute) and malfunctioning fuzes. Actually, during the Continuation War Finns could lay more accurate fire in forests using 1887 model 120 mm cannons than Germans with modern 105 mm howitzers. Though I've above presented mainly problems in the book, it's actually a pretty good one and the general outline of the war is clearly presented. It is not excellent but it's clearly the best one in English that I've read about Winter War, not that I've read many. - Tommi

Asking someone to shoot a smaller target (and a human would be smaller at that range), who is trying not to be a target, and probably moving is not easy to do. As Finnish novellist Veijo Meri wrote in 'Manillaköysi' (it seems that it hasn't been translated to English, it's also available in Swedish as 'Manillarepet'): [This is out of my memory, so details may be wrong. The extract is from a situation where the 'Hullu Vääpeli' ('Mad Staff Sergeant') teaches his men about correct procedures for attack] "When you rise up for a dash it takes the enemy at least one second to notice you, one second to point the barrel at you, and one second to stabilize the aim. If you run 2 meters in one second -- and no man is that slow -- you can advance six meters with no danger to yourself. Most likely it will take him two seconds to do each of the steps so you'll be relatively safe for six seconds and that's enough for a really fast man to make a baby." - Tommi

All Army's that fight in winter have simple but effective method's to slow down or even stop tanks in their tracks so to speak. ever seen the what happens to tanks on ice. Turning a small strech of road into a sheet of ice stop's them dead amazing what some frozen water can do. Actually, tanks can maneuver pretty well on ice. They are generally heavy enough that their tracks bite deep in the ice (much like winter tires on cars). Of course, they can't do quick turns but otherwise ice doesn't hinder tanks at all. I'd guess that if you were lucky the first tank would drive too fast to the ice and crash on some obstacle hard enough to stop it for a while or expose its flanks to an AT gun but the next tank would slow down. In addition, the trap would be effective only until the next snowfall. Another problem is that unfrozen water may be difficult to get during winter. If there are no lakes near, you have to melt it from snow and it takes time and consumes firewood. Actually, ice was used to constructs winter roads. At least Finns and Soviets constructed ice roads, I don't know about other nationalities. The ice on a lake is usually strong enough to carry a man after a couple of day's freezing weather, but it may take weeks before it is strong enough to carry cars or guns. The solution is to cover the ice with tree branches and pour water on it. When the water freezes, the combination of ice and wood can carry much higher loads than the ice in itself. Icy water is a much better deterrent. By blasting a conveniently sited dam one could delay the enemy's advance by a couple of days until the water froze, since in winter it's practically impossible to cross open water. And using piled snow to form a kind of reverse trench that done right can stop a 50cal. Well, yes and no. I don't remember now how much packed snow you need to stop a rifle bullet but I think it is a couple of meters. A 50cal bullet would need even more. Constructing a snow wall this thick takes time and probably disturbes the snow so much that it will be difficult (but not impossible) to camouflage well. Also, a snow wall doesn't stop HE shells. I personally think that you would spend the time better by using a small demolition charge to soften the ground (to break the frozen earth) and digging a foxhole. - Tommi

And wasn't the only requirement for officers that you should be able to say 'Do you do it doggie-style?' in Suaheli No, you also had to know how to order gin. The final series, "Black Adder Goes Forth" has some truly marvellous military quotes, especially when discussing about secret plans: "Melchett: You look surprised, Blackadder. Edmund: I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans. Melchett: Well, of course we have! How else do you think the battles are directed? Edmund: Our battles are directed, sir? Melchett: Well, of course they are, Blackadder -- directed according to the Grand Plan. Edmund: Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until everyone's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise, Alan? Melchett: Great Scott! (stands) Even you know it! Guard! Guard! Bolt all the doors; hammer large pieces of crooked wood against all the windows! This security leak is far worse than we'd imagined!" And: "Melchett: Good man. Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field. [they gather around a model of the battlefield] Blackadder: Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Darling: How can you possibly know that Blackadder? It's classified information." I found the scripts online at http://hem.passagen.se/dunsel/ba.htm . - Tommi

Username wrote: As for HE fillers being effective, I have read many accounts of Shot (and perhaps shell that failed to explode) that have entered tanks by surviving crewmen. I cant remember anyone relating an experience where an AP shell enters and explodes. I made a quick search and managed to find a link to picture of a T-34 that was penetrated by a German AT-shell that exploded and still the commander of the tank survived (for a while, he was later shot when he tried to reach Soviet lines, his tank was a point tank of an attack that was thrown back). The link is http://kyyppari.hkkk.fi/~k21206/finhist.html#war . It is the picture there two Finns with Panzerfausts look at a burning T-34. However, maybe I should point out that the German StuGs hit the T-34 two times, and the commander escaped after the first hit but before the second shell hit... - Tommi

Germanboy wrote: What about pointed sticks, though They could also use Pineapples to throw. Or they could use sharpened mangos... The final episode of a Black Adder rerun was aired yesterday. George: "You know, that's the thing I don't really understand about you, Cap. You're a professional soldier, and yet, sometimes you sound as though you bally well haven't enjoyed soldiering at all." B.A.: "Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. The kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with dry grass." - Tommi

One comment though, why the hell are so many of your sagas SO depressing? Everyone bloody dies in them. C'mon where's the "and they all lived in a nice comfy fjord forever after" ? Well, for one thing, there's not a single fjord in Finland and if they wanted to live in one, they'd have to move to Norway, and I can't see any self-respecting mythical Finn doing that, especially after the Norsemen repeatedly confuse Finns with Sami in their sagas. (At least in Egill's saga and I think that in Njall's saga, also). Actually, our folklore and mythology is different from the Germanic tradition and our legends don't have powerful warriors killing scores of enemies. We have just mystic poem-singers singing their advesaries into swamps and an abundant supply of young maidens drowning themselves in lakes (I can count three without looking at any sources...) Well, as this posting doesn't have anything to do with CM or WWII, I might continue for a while about bears. (My bus home leaves in 15 minutes and I have to fill time somehow...) For Old Finns a bear was a mythical creature and the ruler of the forest. One shouldn't call it with its correct name, 'karhu', as it might hear and come to investigate. Instead, they used a number of nicknames: 'otso', 'mesikämmen' ('Honey-Paw'), 'metsän herra' ('Master of the Forest'), and so on. The only time when 'karhu' was used was during 'karhunlepytys' ('Appeasement of Bear') which was a 3-day ceremony that was held always after a bear was killed. The idea of the ceremony was to appease the spirit of the bear so that it wouldn't come back for revenge. - Tommi

Fionn wrote: In its pure form though a berserker was a man who, when forced into battle fury, killed a bear in hand to paw combat (or used a sword or axe to kill it). Actually, a long knife is a lot better weapon to attack a bear with than either a sword or a axe. Here in Finland we don't have a tradition of berserks (the only ones mentioned in sagas are Swedes from Åland) but one of the archetypes of Finnish folklore (much like American 'Frontier Hero' or 'Cowboy') is (and has been for some thousands of years) the 'Bear Hunter' who kills bears with only a knife. The trick is to get the bear to attack you. Just before the bear attacks it rises to its hind legs and prepares to hit you with its paw. At this moment you dive into its embrace and bury your knife to its heart killing it instantly. Of course, this method is not recommended for first-timers and you should have a pretty good understanding where the heart is, as you will get only one chance. Also, the traditional end of a 'Bear Hunter' is to be found lying dead in an embrace with a dead bear... It's much more difficult to kill the bear with one strike if you use an axe or a sword and fighting a wounded bear will not be a pleasant experience. I think there has been a few verified instances of hunters killing bears with just a knife. The legendary Martti Kitunen who lived in middle 19th century killed over 300 bears during his life and some of the kills were with a knife. I think it's interesting to note that long after firearms had replaced crossbow and spear as a hunter's weapons of choice, bear hunters used spears. A flintlock rifle was just not reliable enough to be used against a bear. - Tommi

Curious. Yesterday I read this discussion on MT fuzes and immediately after reading it I stumbled upon an account where Soviets stopped a Finnish attack against a fortified hill by firing shrapnells, which pretty much by definition implies that MT fuses were used. However, I don't know about any details about these fire missions. - Tommi

'Berserk' - Old Norse berserkr, bjorn-bear and serkr-shirt. That was the other one possibility that I thought of when I mentioned that the etymology of the word is not clear. I just went to see the Swedish Academy's online dictionary, and found that they too derive it from "ber" and "bär" that are ancient forms of bear. (The word was "bärsärk" until middle 19th century). One of the "original" berserks was said to be Bärvard Bjarke who served in the court of Rolf Krage, a 8th century Danish king. One night when Krage was attacked by his enemies, a large bear fought on his side and later in the fight it was found out that the bear was the spirit of Bjarke who had been sleeping at the time. - Tommi

Fionn asked: 10 Cool points for anyone who can tell me where the word berserk comes from (think warrior tradition here) Ghost Dog answered: an ancient nordic warrior(Viking)that are subject to sudden fits of anger. Much like some people on this board The actual etymology of the word is not completely clear, however. The most probable derivation comes from "bar" - bare and "skjorta" - shirt (or, the Old Norse equivalents of these modern Swedish words), i.e. someone fighting without a shirt. In purest berserk tradition one should go into combat butt naked while biting one's own shield. Wild hairdos are a definite plus. - Tommi

I wrote: Some years ago I read a telling quote by General Dietl who commanded the Lappland Army of Germans. I don't remember the exact words but it went something like this: "The large forests filled us always with dread. When our columns had to enter one of them we were always on our nerves waiting for sudden ambushes. When we reached the edge of the forest I always felt relieved." I found the quote, or at least part of it again. It was not by Dietl but by Colonel-General Lothar Rendulic. The actual words were: "I always breathed easily when the forest walls on both sides of the road endend and we emerged to open ground. But these moments were rare and the open spaces were short." - Tommi

I don't understand why they would move all their blokes across a field. One well set gunner would cause alot of damage, the beaten zone for these guns ripp. The theory behind that is that in forest battles stealth is essential. The longer your forces are in open the more probable is it that they are detected. If your side doesn't have a complete air superiority, a recon plane might spot them, or maybe spotters in nearby hills could notice them and form up an ambush somewhere along the march direction. In forest, the one who sees the enemy first most likely wins the battle. Like I wrote before, a mad dash over the clearing is not the Right Thing either. You have to send small patrols to recon the other side before crossing. - Tommi

In another thread I mentioned about the Soviet 700 men partisan patrol to Porajärvi. That patrol fulfills my definition of fanaticism pretty well. The unit fought without supply for a month, living of berries, mushrooms, and an occasional fish, while being constantly on move. Their wounded who couldn't walk were left behind to delay the pursuers and fought to death in most cases. Many blowed themselves up with hand grenades when the situation became hopeless. Finns captured only 24 prisoners and IIRC only couple of them were not severely wounded when taken. - Tommi

Why do people insist on invading Russia? Well, I think it's an image thing. Nowadays you can't be considered to be a "Real Dictator" unless you have been beaten in Russia... Maybe you could give some snippets (or links to) accounts of eastern karelian battles to give furhter insights on effective forest warfare ? I'm going to write an article about "the wilderness war" in Viena and Onega but I haven't had the time to do that yet and it will take at least a couple of weeks before I have. Meanwhile, I've borrowed some 3 kg of books from a library to refresh my memory. Unfortunately, they all are in Finnish so I can't give any generally useful pointers. In particular, I found three accounts of one Soviet partisan trip behind Finnish lines in July-August 1942, two from Finnish side and one from Soviet side. To make a long story short, the Soviets sent a 700 man partisan brigade to destroy the HQ of Finnish II Army Corps. The patrol was way too large and it was soon detected (it is not possible to move in groups larger than 50 men without leaving large trails). The maneuver battle lasted for a full month with Finnish pursuers and Soviet partisans playing cat-and-mouse in the vast uninhabited wilderness. In the end only some 120 partisans managed to escape to their own lines. Finns lost 37 KIA, 1 MIA, and 81 WIA. The partisan units that fought in Karelia were elite army formations composed of volunteers and not a poorly-armed collection of civilians and broken army units like in occupied Ukraine and Byelorussia. - Tommi

I'd like to point out that while German infantry in general had good tactics, their performance in large forests (when I say 'large' I mean the large forests of East Front, with forests covering some tens of thousands of square kilometers or more) left much to be desired. In general, German soldiers were afraid of deep forests. Most of the Germans had not encountered that kind of terrain (heavy pine and fir woods scattered with marshes) and so they were not experienced in moving (and living) in them. In addition, their Russian enemies were accustomed to the forests and knew how to move there without leaving traces and how to set up ambushes efficiently. In short, forests in East Front belonged to Russians except in Eastern Karelia where Finns patrolled. Some years ago I read a telling quote by General Dietl who commanded the Lappland Army of Germans. I don't remember the exact words but it went something like this: "The large forests filled us always with dread. When our columns had to enter one of them we were always on our nerves waiting for sudden ambushes. When we reached the edge of the forest I always felt relieved." Now some observations for the article: The Germans stress constant reconnaissance to discover the most weakly manned enemy position Agreed. In forests one has to patrol constantly as it is the only way to discover the enemy (aerial reconnaisance is very limited). In order to achieve surprise, the Germans often leave the roads and advance cross-country. I think this statement reflects most the state of American forest-fighting at the time of writing, since for example Finns and Russians took it for granted that one should _never_ attack along a forest road. (You can advance along it but if you meet resistance you outflank it). As soon as the point of the wedge of the company is in sight of the enemy, the Germans creep forward to close-combat range, always keeping contact with adjacent and supporting units. Most of the Karelian combats were decided in the first 30 seconds of the fight, the one who managed to ambush the enemy from close range winning it. The Germans consider fighting in wooded areas as the primary task of riflemen and machine gunners, since the employment of heavy-support weapons often is impossible. I disagree. Fighting in wooded areas is the primary task for SMG gunners. As the combat ranges are very short, machine guns and rifles have limited utility. The most important support weapon is a light mortar (around 50 mm). When the Germans leave a woods or have to cross a large clearing within the wooded area, the troops work themselves close to the edge of the woods. Then all the men leave the woods simultaneously, rushing at least 100 yards before seeking cover. That's a very efficient way to kill a lot of your own troops if there is a hidden ambush on the far side of the clearing. The correct way is to send first a couple of scouts to check the other side, then send a squad or two to cover the advance, and finally rush all other troops over the clearing as fast as possible. - Tommi

Try iCab...fast small..but not as fast as lynx.... Maybe I should add that my home machine runs normally on Linux and I boot to Windows only when I want to play something. I usually don't even use xwindows unless I'm writing something with LaTeX or debugging a program. - Tommi

I haven't been bothered by any Java or JavaScript stuff ever. The reason for this: I disable both by default and turn them on only when some page that I _really_ have to access doesn't work without them and even then I turn them off as soon as possible. There's only one thing that truly annoys me with www-pages: pages that can't be read with lynx. I usually browse from university's machines and they load pretty much everything fast, but when I'm home I have only a slow (14400) modem and I use lynx. - Tommi

But as in all games a win is a win. I have to disagree here. There are many games, even classical board games, that assign different scores to different kinds of wins. For example, in Backgammon (which is one of the oldest games known) the score is doubled if you manage to finish before your opponent has entered the final phase of the game (I don't know the correct English terms). I think that any rating system for CM has to take into account the different victory levels. - Tommi

Would it be possible to assign points (wins?) based on the score? Like a 90-10 game would net the victor nine wins and a loss and the loser a win and nine losses? I'm not an expert on chess ratings so I don't know how that approach would affect the scores. However, if it doesn't cause any problems I'd suggest using a scale of assigning 20 wins per game so that the score could be calculated with the accuracy of 5 points. For example: score 45-55 leads to 9 and 11 wins (plus 11 and 9 losses). - Tommi

Originally posted by Fionn: He of the walking towards the fence to stop being questioned fame Future Iron man wrote: What the... Can anybody tell me what that means According to some accounts Stalin's son committed a suicide in a POW camp by walking towards the camp fence in a broad daylight which was stricly forbidden, so a guard shot him. - Tommi

Bullethead wrote: I might add that the Japanese maintained the strategic initiative in Burma until 1944. This is the ONLY place in the whole war where the Axis wasn't in strategic retreat from 1942 on. Just nitpicking here... The Finnish army stayed where it had advanced until Summer '44 (well, a couple of extended strongpoints were lost to Soviets but the main battle line stayed put). Even then, at Rukajärvi sector (and I think at Uhtua but I'm not sure) the front line stayed where it was until the armistice. Of course, Rukajärvi was a sideshow of a sideshow but Soviets performed two large-scale attacks in '43 and '44. - Tommi

One of the worst losses of a division-sized unit that I've seen was with one Soviet infantry division (can't remember its number just now, my source is away) that participated in Winter War. The division participated in only three attacks (Lake Suvanto 25-26.12., some that I can't remember, and the drive to Viipuri on the final days of the war) and was in combat only for some 20 days. During this time the unit lost some 25000 men out of original 14000 and it was refitted twice. - Tommi