tss

SMG units were historically very effective in many situations, especially in ambush or when clearing a trench or a house. One (quite extreme) example. On 14 February 1940 the Red Army managed to capture the Stronghold 5 of the Kirvesmäki section of the Taipale sector. The next night, Finns sent a counter-attack unit to recapture the stronghold (that was by then actually only a shallow ditch as the trenches and the sole dugout had been destroyed by artillery fire). The unit was small, at most 20 men strong but it had all SMGs of the company and several that were borrowed from other nearby units so almost all of them had SMGs. The men were hand-picked from the whole company and they also had lots of hand grenades. The nightly counter-attack was a success. Finns lost only one wounded. The Red Army lost dozens of killed. There are conflicting accounts on the number of Soviet dead. 2nd Lt. Alpo Reinikainen who assumed the command in the section several days later states that 95 dead Soviets were counted in the trench, while some other sources state that the figure was 76 KIA. In any case, the trench was filled by dead bodies. My grandfather's company's war diary includes the following description of the event: In the forested areas of Karelia Finns used full companies that had two LMGs per platoon and otherwise only SMGs. A SMG platoon could put so much lead in the air that in ambush situations the enemy rarely had time to react at all before the combat was decided. Conversely, if a Finnish unit was ambushed, it often could survive by suppressing the ambushers with SMG fire (Soviet units had fewer SMGs and more rifles). - Tommi

Zakalwe wrote: So it's SMK, then? Yup. However, this picture was often cited to represent a T-35, so I was a bit confused. Yes, even some new sources claim that. He said that he was pretty sure there were no T-35s in action (I expressly asked, since I was an avid ASL player at the time), he guessed that most of the infantrymen were confusing T-28s with their larger cousins; As I've said earlier, during the Winter War Finnish infantrymen generally classified tanks in rough equivalence classes (hey, I've just listened to category thory for two hours so you will have to suffer too) based on their size: - Tiny (T-37 and its ilk, small tankettes) - Small (T-26, BT) - Large (T-28) - Very large (the experimental vehicles) Those who vere knowledgeable in tank designs could probably name the "small" tanks, though they would call them Vickers (T-26) and Christie (BT), based on the original models. The Continuation war added three more equivalence classes: - "Sotka" (T-34) - "Klimi" (everything heavy except T-28 and T-34). - Assault gun (everything without a turret) In particular, all heavy tanks were generally identified as KV-tanks, no matter what their actual type was. Many of the KVs that were reported in summer '44 were actually IS-IIs or lend-lease Churchills. All light tanks got identified as "Vickers" tanks even in summer '44. For example, on 9 June five Red Army tanks were knocked out during recon probes and they all were recorded as T-26s. However, it seems probable that they were actually T-70s or other late-war recon tanks. - Tommi

armornut wrote: They were used, as perchpole said, against the Finn's in 1941. Not as far as I know. There seems to be some confusion about tank models which is emphasised by the fact that most Finnish writers identify all heavy tanks with more than one turret as T-35s. Many Finnish sources state that Soviets used T-35s against Mannerheim Line at Summa on December 18-19 1939 and later during the February major offensive. However, Soviet sources deny this and I'm inclined to believe them more. (Tank identification was never a precision science among Finnish infantrymen). However, Soviets field-tested in December T-100 and SMK heavy tanks that were built on T-35 chassis. The SMK broke through Finnish lines and was immobilized there. Some sources state that it hit a mine, others claim that it was immobilized with a demolition charge. I don't know the truth. The tank was too heavy for Finnish recovery vehicles so it was left in place until Soviet breakthrough. Here's a picture of the immobilized SMK: The two men who stand by the T-28 are both Finns so this photo quite conclusively proves that SMK was lost behind Finnish lines. (Some sources claim that it was immobilized in the no-man's land). It is possible that the T-100 was immobilized between lines and that Soviets couldn't recover it. Note that in many Finnish sources this picture appears with a caption claiming that the tank is a T-35C. In February the Red Army field tested some other heavy constructions that were based on T-35 chassis. I don't have my sources available right now but there were two versions of heavy assault guns, with 150 mm howitzers, IIRC. Also KV-I and KV-II tanks were field tested at Summa, the KV-I in December and KV-II in February. An old legend withstanding, the T-34 tank was not used in the Winter War but in Summer 1940 the prototypes were tested against the old fortifications. I haven't seen any mentions of T-35s in Finnish front in 1941. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-12-2001).]

aka_tom_w wrote: are you serious or sarcastic here? (honest I'm not sure ? ) Being sarcastic. I think you are suggesting it took a great deal of trial and error to get a good hull down location. No, I'm not suggesting that, since when on a spot that allowed hull-down positions, it would be relatively simple to get the vehicle hull-down. What I'm suggesting is that no platoon leader could say that "Hey, there's a nice hull-down position just beside that large rock and those two trees that are 500 meters in that direction behind that small forest. Drive there and take that position". I think that the orders "drive to that ridge (relatively far away) and get a good position" and "drive slowly forward until the gunner sees the target (so that the tank is hull-down relative to it)" would be realistic to have, but combining them into "drive to that far-away ridge to that specific location so you are hull-down" would be unrealistic. I don't see anything strange in that a tank has to spend a minute or two finding the hull-down position after moving several hundreds of meters. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-09-2001).]

Leonidas wrote: Surely a real WWII tank commander was capable of finding a hull down position relative to a given point. And surely a real WWII tank commander had a really detailed map that allowed him to choose the hull down position from several hundred meters away and drive there unerringly at the first try. - Tommi

Elvis wrote: Aside from writing an AAR I have still not heard any reason to do anthing other than use the system the way it was designed. I give one reason: errors in saving the file. A couple of weeks ago I run out of space on the drive where CM was installed. Unfortunately, CM doesn't seem to test whether it succeds in saving a PBEM file or not. If your drive is full, you silently lose the turn file. If you tried to save it over the old file, you lose it too, and have to download the email again. jd wrote: Sequentially numbered viola. But what if I want a random-access cello? - Tommi

I remember that either Steve or Charles posted that they had experimented with aimed shots, but the result was that there were proportionally far too many "weak spot" hits. I know of (at least) one example where Stug-IIIG gunners deliberately aimed at a weak spot: During the Kuuterselkä counter-attack on 14 June 1944, the Finnish Stug column came upon a IS-II, from front. For some reason the driver's hatch was open so the two point Stug gunners aimed at it, and corporal Lauri Leppänen hit it with his second shot, knocking the tank out. For some reason the tank entered the official records as a KV-I, but a picture that Lt. Olli Aulanko took of the wreck clearly shows it to be a IS. However, the range was something like 15-20 meters, much, much, much, much, much shorter than an usual engagement range. Leppänen destroyed also 3 T-34-85s on that night. One of the encounters gives some perspective to those who think that CM gunners are too inaccurate: Leppänen's tank commander noticed suddenly a T-34 about 20 m away behind a few trees. Leppänen aimed and fired, but the shot didn't have any effect. It either missed or ricocheted away, he didn't know. Then, the T-34-85 fired at them, but missed. Leppänen got the next shot, and knocked the Soviet tank out. So, here we have 2 ineffective shots at 20 meters. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-08-2001).]

Forever Babra wrote: Grapeshot is a naval weapon and is nothing like "Cannister" which was used by field artillery. OK, I'm not that good in English terminology for old munitions. The corresponding Finnish term is "raehauli". - Tommi

Jarmo wrote: Cannons of the napoleonic era did have HE. Only with a quite exotic definition of HE... The artillery of late 18th -- early 19th century fired almost exclusively solid cannonballs or grapeshots on a battlefield. There were also explosive shells but they were unreliable and usually used only during sieges. (However, there were some exceptions). However, I think that using AT guns with only AP ammo will not accurately portray the effect of old cannons. The main reasons are: 1) they don't have grapeshots 2) the CM AP shots will not penetrate all ranks. (A single well-placed flanking shot could kill or maim 15-20 men). 3) the guns have much higher rof and are much more accurate. It may be that 1-2 are complemented by 3 but I can't say for sure. Oh, and here's one reading tip for all those who are interested in old guns and can read Finnish: Jyri Paulaharju's "Vanhat tykit", available mostly at various military museums. (I have seen it in the Artillery, Armor, and Military museums). - Tommi

Sounds like it is one of Hassel's books. Pure fiction and inaccurate. - Tommi

I'm not certain on other armies, but Finnish army distinguishes between guns and howitzers based on the barrel length only. Long barrel - gun Short barrel - howitzer Really short barrel - siege mortar (only few old Russian 227mm siege mortars were used in WWII). I can't remember the actual limits right now, but I think the border goes at 40 caliberes. Anything longer than that is a gun, anything shorter but longer than 8 caliberes is a howitzer. (For a 75mm gun the 40 caliberes is at 300 cm). And about interesting troops... I can't stand waiting for CM4 to see some Gebirgsmarines. - Tommi

Count me in. Either side. - Tommi

Jeff Heidman wrote: This does not a-priori make all members of the Waffen-SS criminal, but it does suggest that the organization was not typical of WW2 military units. Agreed. There were also decent men in the Waffen-SS. If you can find me an example of any other unit being involved in something like the massacre in the French church, I will be more than happy to label that organization criminal as well. That my earlier partisan example fits the bill here. Someone in Soviet high command decided that the partisans of the Arctic front were not doing their "fair share" and ordered them to conduct more attacks. However, after partisans had managed to ambush several field outposts, both German and Finnish troops were on guard and Smirnov didn't think that his troop was strong enough to tackle one. So what did he do? He attacked a small isolated Finnish village (several houses), killed all inhabitants except two boys who managed to escape, and returned home reporting to have destroyed a major German supply dump, killing 30 Germans. Additionally he claimed to have ambushed an supply column, in an area without any roads at all. The attack was not an accident since the partisans spied the village for at least a full day before the attack. Smirnov's participation in the Magga-atrocity was firmly established in mid-90s. He is still one of the most respected war heroes of the Kola region. - Tommi

Forever Babra wrote: Forget it, Tommi. One can't argue with a hot-head. I know, I was just waiting my program to compile and decided to kill some time. I have tried to live by the following advice regarding to flame wars and their equivalents: "Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it". - Tommi

Maximus wrote: And the Russians didn't commit any atrocities either? Gimme a break. And where in particular did I claim that Soviets didn't commit atrocities? You may stop searching now, since I haven't and don't claim that. On the contrary and for an example, I think that the highly-regarded partisan-leader Alexander Smirnov should be tried for his deliberate attacks against civilians, but that is a completely different matter. My point on the posting was: that one single Finnish SS-volunteer witnessed the murders of almost 150 people in his short time in the front and grew so disgusted that he was ready to kill his platoon leader. Note that he wrote his book ("Haudat Dneprin varrella") in 1945 and had a real possibility of getting into serious trouble by writing it. (A fact that he acknowledged in the preface). - Tommi

Maximus: As for the residents of some concentration camp, I assume, apparently you didn't read the above explained differences. I'm not going to stay in this thread for long (fully knowing what will happen to it), but let me point out few things: 1) The different branches of SS were not completely separate. Concentration camp guards were transferred into Waffen-SS troops and wounded Waffen-SS men were sent to concentration camp guard forces during their convalesence period. 2) Many (but definitely not all) Waffen-SS men committed atrocities. While examples of war crimes can be found in just about any armies, Waffen-SS's track record is one of the blackest. For example, Sakari Lappi-Seppälä who fought for a year in the Westland Regiment of the SS-Wiking division witnessed the following atrocities: (all in 1941) - 36 civilian Jews were first humiliated and then killed after a sniper shot the regimental commander. (Early July) - ~100 POWs were taken from their Heer guards and then shot "for trying to escape" after their SS-guards had been given an impossible time limit to transport them to rear area (12 km in 1/2 hours). - 2 POWs that had fully cooperated with Germans were shot after interrogations. - At Dnepropetrovsk (IIRC) Jews were harrassed and some were killed. - One platoon leader killed a Russian family because their baby cried. - One squad leader raped a Russian woman multiple times. - The same platoon leader as mentioned above forcibly recruited a 14-year old Russian boy as his bearer and killed him when he didn't have the strength to continue. (After this last event Lappi-Seppälä, another Finn, one Dutchman, and one Dane decided to kill their platoon leader in the next combat (by Lappi-Seppälä's account). However, Lappi-Seppälä was wounded in that battle and he didn't know how the officer actually died. He only mentions that his bayonetted body was found on the battlefield after the battle). 3) Most of the Waffen-SS formations most definitely weren't elite. A handful were, those that are mentioned most often. One particularly good example on poor early-war performance of Waffen-SS units is the second attack of one of SS-Div Nord's batallions to Salla. The first attack was repulsed when a camouflaged Soviet bunker-line opened fire from relatively long range. The next time the SS-men attacked, the defenders held their fire. When the Germans didn't receive fire they supposed that Soviets had retreated and walked straight to the bunkers, in a dense mass. The result: 200 casualties. - Tommi

Kanonier Reichmann wrote: The quote was from Blackadder himself (Rowan Atkinson) in response to yet another one of Baldricks "cunning plans". No, it was Field Marshall Haig's brilliant tactical plan that was relayed by General Melchett. The full quote: Melchett: Good man. Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field. 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. Blackadder: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that. Melchett: E-E-Exactly! And that is what so brilliant about it! We will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard! Doing precisely what we have done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time! There is however one small problem. Blackadder: That everyone always gets slaughtered the first ten seconds. Melchett: That's right! And Field Marshal Haig is worried that this may be depressing the men a tadge. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up. - Tommi

Brian Rock wrote: Partly this is due to the fact people's memories distort over time One illustrating example of this is Stepakov's and Orehov's "Paraatimarssi Suomeen" (probably not published outside Finland) that contains interviews of Russian Winter War veterans. The interviews were conducted in late 80's and early 90's. Most of the veterans probably tried to be as accurate and truthful as possible. However, in many, many, accounts the old soldiers repeated old legends as having happened to them. For example, there were incredibly many accounts of battles against Finnish "cuckoos", treetop snipers. However, I haven't been able to find a single case where a Finnish sniper had climbed to a tree. On the other hand, as reported by Miihkali Onttoni, Finnish soldiers at Suomussalmi noticed, and were glad of it, that when they opened fire, Soviets would respond by firing at treetops, apparently because they believed that Finns were there. The most absurd of the tree-top claims is Ismail Akhmedov's claim that Finns had placed a 81mm mortar on a pine... Another legend-turned-to-truth is Finnish women batallions that many veterans claimed to have fought against. - Tommi

Simon Fox wrote: I don't 'know' what a smartass is. Isn't that a well-educated donkey? - Tommi

Germanboy wrote: Any commander would react to this by shifting mobile reinforcements to this sector to prevent such a breakthrough. True, but then his reserves would be tied up and he would be in deep trouble if the enemy managed to get a similar result in another section of the front. - Tommi

Bullethead wrote: Shrapnel shells were pretty much gone from inventories by the time of WW2. The production of shrapnel shells was discontinued after WWI but many countries had still quite large stocks left over and used them also in WWII when regular ammo was on short supply. Shrapnel shells are also quite effective for close defence of the guns. Set the burn time to minimum and you get a 75 mm shotgun. - Tommi

machineman wrote: Take away the bombing campaign and that is exactly what they would have gotten. No they wouldn't. Strategic bombing was very important but it effects didn't start to show before end of '43 and it got really effective in late '44. By that time Germans had already hit their resource limits. On the subject of gun safety. When my brother was in the army, one of his company-mates killed another by playing around with an "unloaded" pistol. As they say, an "empty" gun is the most dangerous one. The correct procedure to unload an assault rifle is to first take the magazine out, then pull the loading mechanism to eject the chambered round, and finally fire an empty shot to release the firing pin. Well, when I was in the army one of my squad mates reversed the first two steps. Fortunately, that "empty" shot was a blank and not a live round. The sergeant who was sleeping in the nearby tent was not amused. Later, that guy was put into kitchen work because no-one wanted him near anything that could explode. A couple of years before I was in the army one private did the same mistake and managed to kill himself with a blank round. - Tommi

Martin Cracauer wrote: Shells falling short must explode nearer to the ground (probably hitting it). Actually, if all your MT fuzes are airbursts, you are probably aiming too high. When a certain percentage of explosions happen on ground ("nokkare", was (and maybe still is) the technical Finnish term for them), the majority of the shells explode on precisely right altitude. If all bursts are airbursts, the mean burst point is higher than optimal. - Tommi

abuassad wrote: nope. i hv 2 say By the way, could you write in a way that us non-native English speakers understand also. - Tommi

tailz wrote: M3 Lee... some on lend-lease to Britain, saw action in North Africa. And Soviet Union. One Soviet M3 was destroyed at Vuosalmi, Karelian Isthmus on July '44. - Tommi