Tero

Originally posted by Miikka: Standard misinformation fed to the enemy, so they have no idea about what is our actual strength. That or it is a work around for the fact there were ~60 (IIRC 62) different models of guns and howitzers of at least 10 different caliber (IIRC at least 75mm, 76,2mm, 84mm, 105mm, 107mm, 114mm, 122mm, 150mm, 152mm, 208mm).

Originally posted by CMplayer: Syntax? Syntax?! It's a question of SPELLIN' not none o' your high falutin' syntax. Falutin' ? The good thing about CMBB is it is totally XXX rated when it comes to language. The swearing in CMBO was a far cry from the life-like (if a bit repetitive) use of non-English/German languages the way the natives use them IRL.

Some remarks: Organization: Just as, if not, more significant in 1941, was a 'bottom up' tactical innovation that emerged in the surrounded town of Tobruk on the Libyan coast between Australian infantry and British artillery – close affiliation between a battalion and its supporting battery. This relationship spread rapidly throughout the British and like-minded armies. It was the critical element for a harmonious and trusting relationship between artillery and the supported arm, and the forward presence of the battery's senior officers was probably its key. With it came guaranteed fire support because the observers could order targets to their battery. As noted earlier the Finnish arty had concentrated its assets at regiment/division level and at the same time placed the arty co-op at the infantry CP already during the 20's. (A side note: I still find it quite intriquing how the British emphasize the importance of officers to the performance of their army during WWII.) The main problem was four companies in a battalion but only two observers in a battery, so the latter often had to move between companies in battle. This could be a problem, particularly in Burma, where it was found that a battery had to deploy up to five observer parties. This was usually achieved by rotating gun-end officers and soldiers through the additional observation parties. The Finnish arty had two observer teams per battery as well (6 per battalion). Generally they seem to have been placed at the right place at the right time. The Finnish arty was a regimental/divisional and not battalion level asset but its was still closely knit to the defensive/offensive operation of the unit it was supporting. This indicates some very basic differences in the organizational problems and how they were solved at different level. A characteristic of the British artillery system was great tactical flexibility by having units' senior officers forward, underpinned by well honed standard drills and uniform procedures for gunnery that enabled junior officers to run gun positions. Quite the contrary in the Finnish arty. The FO's were junior officers or NCO's. Something that has gotta be related to the fact the Finnish army was a conscript army and the British army a professional army. Obtaining and checking parallelism (of the guns, keeping the guns parallel was of fundamental importance). Can any überFinn verify how this was/is in the Finnish arty ? Accurate survey was essential for predicted fire and a common grid facilitated multi-battery engagements. Procedures for the latter had been developed soon after WW1 as a fast process suitable for mobile operations instead of relying on RE survey units to survey all battery positions. The Finnish arty did the surveying for itself. However, it was always a 'bottom-up' process, unless deployment planning enabled survey to take place in advance. A benefit the Finnish arty had established already before the war by mapping the propable areas. Mapping, and survey above the level of the corps survey regiment, was the responsibility of the Royal Engineers. How did it work IRL ? Maintaining up-to-date MV data in war was a major challenge. Again practices evolved throughout the war because while the best solution is to remove the guns to a calibration range this was seldom practical. For example, in the period before El Alamein medium guns were being calibrated every three days. However, this did not solve the problem of variations between batches of propellant, although sorting into batches and having all guns use the same batch for a target ensured consistent firing. Nevertheless in Italy in 1944-5 even this proved impossible because there were so many different batches from ammunition factories in many countries. This adversely affected the accuracy of predicted fire. Both a major concern for the Finns as well. -a range and switch from the zero line to a TCP The second tended to be the preferred method when ranging because it was the quickest, the British view was that speed was more important than ammunition economy. Well...... The observer also decided if corrections for non-standard conditions were to be applied. A judgement call instead of reliance on the data available ? This procedure meant that it generally took about 30 – 60 seconds from receiving the observer's data to firing the first ranging shells. Observers were supposed to be able to produce their data in about a minute from identifying the target. Generally. What was the average ? Corrections were always sent as orders to the guns to move their aim-point, they were never observations of where the shells fell relative to the target. Ranging on the BT line required more skill by the observers than ranging on the observer-target (OT) line. However, section ranging made it easier. The advantage of BT was that the CP did not have to convert and plot corrections from OT to BT so that they could be ordered to the guns, cutting out this step saved time. Another alternative for ranging was ladder ranging whereby each gun in a troop fired one round at a different range and a short interval, enabling the observer to make a single correction and order gunfire, although the observer need good observation of the target area for this. This procedure had been long used by the Royal Navy and coast defence artillery but it never caught-on for field use. Being a CA puke myself I find this interesting. AFAIK the Finnish CA method was to get the grouping as tight as possible and the direct it in unison. Since these large concentrations covered quite large areas (regiment – about 250 × 250 yards, division about 350 × 350 yards, division with AGRA about 400 × 400 yards) precise corrections were generally deemed unnecessary. MPI's being distrubted all around the target area - what is 100-200 yards between friends ? Obviously the more regiments firing at a target the bigger the area affected by the fire. However, this was not a linear relationship. Basically, each troop's mean point of impact (MPI) would be a distance from the MPI of the whole concentration in some direction. The more troops there were the greater the probability of there being some at a greater distance, a normal probability distribution. Obviously. Next were those associated with target location, interesting because they show height as a bigger problem than location. The reason for this was that predicted targets tended to be acquired from locating systems such as sound ranging and flash spotting or gridded air photos that were reasonable accurate. However, the locations then had to be plotted on a map to find the target height. The problem then was the inaccuracy of the maps, particularly in France where a well marked feature such as a road junction could be mis-positioned by up to 100 metres. This meant that height was often wrong because it had been taken from the wrong place on the ground. Obviously these problems with maps meant that predicted targets selected by ground observers were also inaccurate, exacerbated by the much greater PEs for target locations by FOOs (some trials revealed a PE of over 100 yds by FOOs, even with good maps). So in fact TRP's decreased the accuracy dur to inherent faults in the system ? (Incidentaly the site mentioned someplace France being well mapped but I could not find the quote in a hurry). Plotting was based on the use of 1:25,000 scale plots used on artillery boards in command posts, however, long range guns were plotted at 1:50,000 and this doubled the PE. A very, VERY significant difference !!! The underlying causes were the inability to plot to greater than 10 yd precision on a 1:25,000 grid and bowing in the steel range arms from rough handling. Obviously ! Air-burst shells, with clockwork or powder burning fuzes were a further problem. It was virtually impossible to get the optimal height of burst (HOB) for HE (about 10 yds) by prediction, although a 'good enough' result for higher bursting shells such as smoke was possible. Even with ranging the HOB for air-burst fuzes was normally distributed so that from a battery there would be some very low 'daisy cutters' or ground-burst and some at 20 yds or more, and ranging HOB for regimental or higher targets usually meant ranging each battery's HOB in turn. The great advantage of VT fuzes when they were released for field use was their accurate and consistent HOB. Anybody in the know care to comment on the HOB of the Finnish arty, given the 1:20 000 maps ? The major question was whether to use observed (ie ranged) or predicted fire. The latter gave surprise and should, therefore, be more effective for causing casualties and not compromising an impending operation in the case of a fire plan. It also took longer to prepare to fire. It did ? However, predicted fire that took the enemy by surprise but missed the target was totally ineffective. In fact there is evidence that missing was worse than not firing because being missed enhanced the target's morale. Of course if it could be observed it could be corrected, but the result was no better than ranged fire, more ammunition was used and it may or may not have been quicker overall. That is rather what the Finnish arty was trained to avoid. Operations research at the end of the war suggested that the accuracy of predicted fire had been poor, as few as 7% of predicted engagements were effective. This indicates that predicted fire was not the best solution. British operations research. I think Finnish data and experiences would throw an monkey wrench in this equation. Of course one answer was to predict large multi-regiment concentrations and allow the natural spread of MPIs to ensure adequate coverage of the target. Yes. Another approach was to register a target and engage it again later with predicted fire to achieve surprise. However, this depended on the target staying in its registered place. Unless the registration was speedy enough. For example aided by speedy deployment of accurate intelligence data (radio listening etc). Predicted fire was insufficiently accurate and was exacerbated by longer ranges to targets than in WW1. The main causes were stale meteor data, target location errors from inaccurate maps, and ammunition that invalidated calibrated MVs. The Finnish arty took care of the inaccurate maps issue and it tried to keep the calibtarions as accurate as possible. Stale meteoroligical data was a problem to all it seems. [ October 29, 2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by JonS: Interesting post Jari. Shame about this comment though: Kind of kills any prospect for debate, dontcha think Oh, man !!! Just when I was about to go public with some findings about differences between RA and the Finnish arty. Methinks the entire subject is all about differences, not similarities. Kind of like discussing the relative merits of Lada Samara, (Ford Pinto to you Americans), a Vauhall/Opel Astra and a MB500-series. All these get the job done but there are certainly differences in the implementation of the basics. [ October 29, 2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Or is it loser ?

While going through the RA site lets move on with the general topic of this thread: I just noticed you get steppe terrain type in the Finnish sector. Is that just a naming/assingment "bug" or are there any differences in "open" terrain types (steppe/tundra etc). Grassland in general was not exactly the most common open terrain type in the Northern sector.

Originally posted by JonS: ... By 1942 each [FO] party had three radios The party must have been a blast.... How many men to a party ? And how was the actual spotting done ? FO teams going off and directions/observations relayed to the FO party site or to the BQH ? ... The observers’ basic equipment were binoculars, map, compass and protractor. Batteries also held telescopes, tripod mounted stereoscopic binoculars, For direct fire/self spotted fire missions ? optical range finders, directors and artillery boards for their OPs, the last 3 to enable 'silent registration' ... Please ellaborate. This board was 30 inches square (there was also a 21-inch version) with linen reinforced paper pinned to it. This was gridded, normally the scale was 1:25,000 and the grid could be either yards or metres depending on the type of map used in the theatre. A steel bearing arc aligned to the zero line was pinned to the board and a range arm rotated on the pivot along the bearing arc. The board's purpose was to measure the range and switch (from zero line) to the target. rearranging a bit I took the Artillery Board to be the equvalent of the Korja. That would actually be a taso (flat/plain/plane) as seen in the picture with no map contours you asked about. The Korja is a separate instrument. A cylindrical brass pivot was positioned at the correct location to represent the ‘pivot’ gun of each troop to about 10 yards accuracy. Getting a picture here about some of the differences From the winterwar site Various other instruments, graphs and data were also used in the CPs. Too detailed for me. I trust an artillery expert can make notes on the differences is any. However, it does not seem to have entered general service... Unlike the Korja. So, maps were usually at 1:25thou scale. Seems so. Radios were (relativly) plentiful. Yep.

Originally posted by Foxbat: It's intelligence gathering, which is strictly speaking outside the scope of the tactical battle. Yet another difference. Pin pointing the defensive positions is intelligence gathering. Orienteering is not. Anyways, the data should be gathered well in advance and is most definitely in the scope of tactical combat. You can not get lost using a lousy map if you do not have that map in the first place. For armies operating overseas/abroad the task of mapping the terrain is indeed intelligence gathering. But something that would/should be done before the troops step one foot in the terrain. IIRC the Germans used tourist maps when they conquered France (and from what I learned from Andreas they left the topographical stuff at that). I would love to see it implemented in one way or another (eg the soviet always took great pains to gather information on the kind of troops positioned on the other side of the front, especially if a an offensive was upcoming. Wouldn't it be nice to see that reflected in some way). Realism is good. It's just one of those things that often get overlooked, or taken for granted. Indeed. Take for example the measuring of barrel wear of guns as a factor in the accuracy of guns, the Finnish Artillery primer on the winter war mentions this and other factors quite explicitly. And you'll seldom find it mentioned anywhere else yet it was SOP in most armies. I guess the fact that that finnish site is one of the best arty primers period has something to do with it too. Especially since it doesn't get stuck in procedures and explains clearly and vivedly how thing ...er worked. With most of Finnish males having experience in things military you can not claim accuracy and speedy responce if you do not emphazise the elements that go into it. I think one of the reasons the procedures are left out from the books written right after the war was because they were read by the guys who took part in the war and did not need explaining (and the stuff was classified anyway). And newer books leave them out because our army being a conscript army there is no need to go into details of procedure since most of the male population gets the drift without going to too much details while the mechanics and the other less obscure factors are not widely known since not everybody go to the artillery (and the stuff is semi-classified anyway). Good heavens no, I just followed the discussions in the past (and some of them up when I rejoined the forum). I've also have a more than passing interest in (board)game design*, which means I tend to look at things form a game mechanics standpoint. OK. * One day my Historical car design and Racing Boardgame project will bear fruitition and I will be famous the world over Be sure to steer away from CDV....

Originally posted by TN: That, my friend, is called a preplanned defensive fire mission. Yes. The FO has, in cooperation with the platoon leader and company CO, delivered a list of defensive barrages and their coordinates to the supporting firing unit. I have not even begun to bring in fire plans, the different types of targets and the different forms of fire they are supposed to be fired at to this debate in earnest. The firing unit has calculated their firing solution, and especially if they have previously fired to the general area, no ranging shots are needed. The barrage will be accurate enough. In CM world that would be done with a TRP. No contest. But what about a typical 1941 attack phase (or 1944 delay phase style battle to simulate a hasty counter attack) meeting engagement style battle ? Would you say with enemy contact imminent an arty fire plan would be drawn for the upcoming advance before the troops set out ? Or in case of 1944 counter attack a previous defensive fire plan is updated/adjusted ?

Originally posted by JonS: Not sure of your point here, or who you're trying to make it to. I thought made it clear that I objected to the überUS angle of the article. Sorry. Nothing personal. I'm just a bit amused how one mans national bias is other mans legit assesment of facts but not vice versa. Mapping was the responsibility of the RA and/or the RE (varied by time and location). During the war ? I can show you a section of a map drawn by the NZA, but I'm not sure what that would prove :confused: That the Allies used maps? Surely you knew that, or could at least take it on trust. That the Allies maps were of good quality? See above. Can you provide any data on scales and such ? Incidentally, I note in the photos Ari has from the museum there appears to be a hand drawn map (as opposed to a hand drawn master then printed copies). That is actually the fire plan overlay, not the map itself. There are for example friendly units written on it and the grid is "named" for lack of a better term. The anybody (not just FO) can request fire by indicating the hex grid as "Retku" and give a general description of the target area (bend towards east in eastern shore of stream east of the hill 127.4 for example) if no prominent terrain features are named like "area of Portinhoikka crossroads" or "barn of the Muttilainen farm". The BHQ can then pin the pin and do their thing and fire a strike at the target they just plotted. Issuing everyone with their own individual hand drawn map doesn't to me sound like a terrific way of going about business. I trust you are familiar with the use of map overlays. Aside from there being no elevation information, the chances of having more than a few such maps without introducing some major variations would have to be fairly remote. The elevation information is irrelevant in the overlay because if you know the exact position of the batteries and the map is accurate enough you can rule out areas where you can not hit with that battery already during battery set up. When the fire directions come in the BHQ can inform the FO instantly "no can do" if the pin is pinned in the indicated area. *shrug* Then don't play those battles. IMHO, TRPs should be under artillery, not fortifications, but thats just me. That is not a bad suggestion actually. Besides, I seldom play QBs, and scenario designers seem very loath to use TRPs for some reason. Somehow the "play überElite Finns in assault scens instead of QB's" somehow defeats one of the major turn ons and attractions the game has. Try designing your own series of überFinnish scenarios. Then you can have dozens of TRPs and set it up so you can single handedly smite all the Russians you want Well.... I like QB's. With the appropriate rarity options on I get all the TRP's I need but not enough artillery. At what level were 122mms held? It was regimental or divisional. Most of the arty for the Finns is. Do you think that might account for the delay? More to the point, how is this different from any other nation? See my other post on organization and average delays.

Originally posted by Foxbat: Apparently BTS already made the Finns 0ber when they designed the game Sorry. I see nothing in that statement about Finns being made über. All I see is the Red Army arty being completely different than Axis (particularly German and Finnish) for the whole war, but especially during the late 1941 through 1943 period. And we aren't just talking delays here. Just because the word Finnish appears in the text it does not transform it to evidence about the modelling of the Finnish arty. [ October 24, 2002, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Foxbat: And this does lead to odd situations, especially in arty where fire mission arrive faster than the shell could fly, without any apparent need to calculate firing solutions or even train the guns on the next target.. Indeed. And when I cry überwolf and actually have something to back it up with it is national bias cathegorically ? Redirect from the original thread (page 12) in case you missed it the first time around Just to clear one point: regardless of the organizational level refers to the data on winterwar.com about the average delays for the Finnish arty during Winter War and Nablas TOE. From Nablas data we can conclude there were only mortars in regimental/battalion level. All the real arty was at division level or it was "independent". The average delays for Finns (during Winter War but I think they did not get any worse during Continuation War) [ October 24, 2002, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Keke: So BFC should make a patch according to a movie? No need to. It already seems to work like that. [ October 23, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Foxbat: Just my little joke, about you bringing up the same point but in disguise Oh, I thought you were about to render my data invalid by introducing some new data. Mind you I always think my jokes are hilarious, others tend to have a less developped sense of humour Happens to me all the time. I'm quite sure that the artillery system and it's limitation were discussed at length in the good ol' days of CMBO. Yes. But I do not remember having seen anything on the topographical aspect. Except a debate with Andreas quite some time ago about the German occupation of France and my astonishment about their apparent lack of topographical survey. Maybe, but I would think that this should really be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The only quick fix I could think of is to make 'mapping' a buyable feature with rarity based on country, period and mission type. That would be ideal. But why not simply acknowledge it, establish just how important it was and adjust the existing delays to match the data in a future CMBB patch ? Still that is not only far outside the current scope of CM, it would also require a vast amount of research time (not to mention an overhaul of the artillery system). Not something I'd expect to see before the engine rewrite. IMO it is not that far outside the Scope. One curious note BTW: browsing through the various URL's it seems the Finnish artillery is the only one which specifically mentions the topographical data and availability of accurate maps as an important factor in the procedures. I agree that this has been handled somewhat inelegantly, but I guess that's what were stuck with for the forseeable future. And no I don't believe that Finns would have a sole right to TRP's on the attack.. other countries did pre-battle survey (including aerial survey) to you know. Attack/defend battle types (where you already get TRP's) are not the main issue. The issue is the types of battle you do not get TRP's. BTW: are you acting as the voice of Steve/BFC or some other such organ ? Your voice seems somehow more authorative all of a sudden.

Originally posted by JonS: I've seen that article before, and wasn't very impressed with it. It doesn't really describe, compare and contrast all nations artillery, it just propagates the myth that all the other militarys were inept buffoons until the US showed up. There are some good elements in it, and its decription of US proceedures are in particular, but I wouldn't take it much past that. überAmericans goooood, überFinnish baaaad. By-the-by: Tero has been banging on about überFinnish maps again, as though no one else ever had the thought to draw a 2D representation of a 3D environment on paper and to scale Actually I have not said anything of the sort. What has been missing is the data on the others. I have presented the Finnish side so I expect something on the others regarding their topographical services and practises. So far zilch, nada, zip, bobcus. Either they indeed could not render 3D into 2D in scale or there is something sinister going on behind the scenes. I direct you to Foxbats remarks (which sound very much as if they came from Steve directly) on the topographical data gathered when the original model was being developed. If you think the Finns should get some benefit from süberior mapping, give them TRPs as Foxbat suggested, Works only for the types of battles you can purchase them in. or crank up the experience of your FOs. Crack and Elite FOs knock out firemissions rather quickly. 6mins in my copy of the game for a Crack Finnish FO firing (IIRC) 122mm ordnance. Or, for those days when you're really feeling your überFinn oats, do both. Did that and look what happened.

Originally posted by Foxbat: I hope you (or BFC) don't mind me calling your bluff on this one Bluff ? What bluff ? As near as I can tell you bring up 3 points over and over again. These points not only appear to come directly from the winter war site's article on finnish artillery practices, you also consistently bring these same points up in such a way that they (should) appear relevant to the topic at hand. Much of the argumentation revolves around these points. And as of yet Steve or someone in the know has not managed to comment directly on any of them. Here we go on the mapping aspect again... nice way of putting it though. Yes. The broken record does have more than one track on it. But to give you an answer on this, one that should be close enough to what BFC might tell you, no of course topograhical info wasn't considered when they designed the artillery system. That is the impression I got. And it was not too hard to state it now was it ? BTW: was/is that classified information ? How could they? Only by determining a priori for every time-period and every type of mission how well the topography was known and how good the maps available. Sounds about right. That is not only next to impossible without resorting to sweeping generalisations [say of the sort "Finns have great mapping they should have faster response time" ], it would also be unrealistic because some defences would be better prepared than others (which includes topographical survey) and a system that uses any kind of pre-determined assumptions on topographical info would be inflexible in this regard. It seems to me there is a lot of info inferred that could and would act as a basis for a scientific model. I hope that system based on pre-determined assumptions on topographical info was not the American or the German system which would have been inconvenienced. Now in a more sophisticated artillery model this could of course be handled better. But currently this issue is handled by TRPs, which is obviously not a perfect method but at least it's flexible and doesn't disadvantadge one nationality more than others. I would tend to agree. If the TRP's did not disadvantage one nationality more than others by their mere absence in certain types of CM battle types.

Originally posted by JonS: I was just about to start a QB against the AI, but answering this will be more fun I'm open for PBEM's I can accept that, but if the net result (ie, delivery of rounds to the target) is the same, is there any need for differences between FOs? That would lead to the follow up questions "Is there really any need to have different delays for anybody. Why not have all FO's act exactly the same with the same delays and what not ?" IOW, if all the differences are off the CM map, do we really need 'force specific modifiers' (or whatever)? Exactly. Why should a German FO get a different (better) responce time than a Soviet FO ? The civilian conscripts did they jobs as they were ordered to - it wasn't a lack of skill that defeated them but lack of control from the very top. Interesting. The Finnish system was built from scratch after we became independent so there was really no burden of old traditions to hamper the development. And it does indeed seem there were striking similiarities in the RA and Finnish concepts. But also striking differences. And in turn you have to remember that the RA was working to exactly the same principles throughout the war. As outlined, the principles got lost for a bit between early 41 and late 42, but by mid 43 they were back on top, and just went from strength to strength. It is quite interesting how much of the changes and innovations happened around 1943. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the situation - a static defence or a planned attack can probably come up with workable alternates, but in a mobile/fluid situation I think I'd rather have the good comms Here is where we part way. I'd rather take the solid procedures over excellent comm's in all situations. Excellent comm's is a poor substitute for a accurate fire strike. One of the reasons the Finnish WWII defensive tactics were so rigid even during the volatile phase (holding/delaying actions and holding on to the defensive positions at all costs until ordered to pull back) was the need to pin down the enemy so they could be engaged with artillery effectively even if the comm's were on the blink. Making the enemy attack over the same ground over and over again made the task of the artillery that much easier. One of the things that got drummed into us was that provideing fire support is only a secondary (or tertiary?) role. Seems the list is pretty much the same all around. The primary one is to relay tactical information back up the artillery CoC. The infantry do the same thing, of course, but the structure of their radio nets means that information travels far more slowly via grunt means than it does over gunner means. But for that to work, you need good comms Have you seen the movie Winter War ? There is a scene where a grunt dispatch runner arrives at the company CP and deliveres the requests for fire support. The CO grunts to the arty puke "See if you can spare a strike at Pärssinen" and the arty puke does not have to ask any questions he just picks up the phone and moments later the pathetic barrage is delivered on target. Without any ranging shots fired. For £100: what was missing from that scene ? A) the FO the korjausmuunnin C) adequate fire support D) decent communications E) all of the above

Originally posted by JonS: Ari, I doubt very much that the Finns copied the RA, or vice versa. Rather, I think it more likely that two independant, talented groups of gunners came up with similar solutions to the same problem. True. But the sameness of the problems do not automatically mean the solutions are similar in nature even if the net result is the same. Actually, AFAIK during inter-war years Finnish officers went to (at least) France, Sweden, and the UK to receive training in various fields. (Note, the doctrine was OK, the implementation sucked). Could the fact the British (and the US) army was a professional army while the German (and the Finnish) army was based on conscription have a bearing in these matters ? The Brits did lose a lot of trained (pro's) and semi-trained (territorials) personel early on that would account for the impelmentation sucking when there was an influx of trained but inexperienced personel. For the Finns during Winter War it was a matter of insufficient resources. During Continuation War the situation regarding resources got infinitely better. Right on all counts. The point I was making was the Finnish method(OT rather than GT) and tools (Korja) weren't really that much different than the RA method and tools. As an FO using OT rather than GT certainly is easier, but if you're trained to use GT, and that's all you've ever known, and all your systems have been designed with that in mind ... ? At the BHQ the GT does not alter one bit. The Korja only made calculating the changes faster since an FO could give directions and any/all batteries on call could do the calculations independently based on that one direction. Also, regardless of the method used, once you have the first round on the ground and can start adjusting, everything else is a piece of cake. You have to remember the Finnish method called for directing a whole battalion instead of a single battery. And most of the fire types called for TOT fire to boot. The IJN used different colour dye to tell apart who was shooting where. That is harder in dry land when you have three (or more) batteries firing at a 100m x 100m target. This is why the topographical data being spot on is so important and it was the artillery who was responsible for developing the entire Finnish survey service. Yes, but the two keys are good comms, and excellent systems. Very true. However, the bad comms you can work out and come up with alternate methods and still make the excellent systems count whereas bad systems are far harder to eradicate and replace no matter how good your comm's are. Damn Finns, they're like cockroaches: they keep popping up everywhere, and are so damned hard to kill And we pop up in the damndest places. You do know the guy who is credited with developing the Linux is a Finn ? I'll see what I can do. Please. Ah. Of course. Blame those bloody Russians for anything less than über The Finnish army was a queer mix: most of the officers were trained by the Imperial German army but the ones who became really prominent were ex Imperial Russian army (Mannerheim and Nenonen).

Originally posted by JonS: You could have newsletters and stuff. I have always had a feeling Peng is an überFinn.

Originally posted by Seanachai: SHAMEFUL! SIMPLY SHAMEFUL! It is, isn't it... So all these claims of ÜberFinn artillery practices are based on some sort of primitive, northern form of roulette?! And a rigged roulette at that. Oh, and tero, you lose points for constantly shifting ground and attempting to 'redefine' the argument when put into a false position. It will be a sad day when BFC introduces ratings to postings. Just gathering all the über-BS FLAK so the REAL debate team can give the coup-de-grace. Seriously: Steve knows about a lot of things. But he just will not spill the beans on the actual arty modelling and what went into it when the design decisions were made. He is constantly referring to the big picture and integrity of the model while I'm dabbling with the minutae I feel are relvant in relation to the big picture as I see it. It would help if Steve would reveal for example if the topographical aspect was considered when the model was being worked out originally. Or how the differences between the German and the Western Allied methods and procedures were qualified and and quantified for the model. Yes, I am well aware the big picture has to be taken into account when establishing the global parameters. It would help to know what is relevant to the big picture and what is not. But you know I love you, ya bluff, hearty, ÜberFinn, you! You should know in Finland you can not go around saying you love a guy. Thanks anyway. Carry on. Quite a good on-going thread. I think so too.

Originally posted by JonS: Cheers for that. I hadn't really given that word much specific thought, but I had figured that out ;)8/qb] Just being courtious. [qb]Sounds just like the RA ones I've seen/heard about/read about So why did the URL on RA state the OT system was not taken up until 1950 ? It has nothing to do with the scale of the maps. Just hazarding a guess. Incidentally, 1:20thou maps are all very nice, but 1:50thou are just as good for what is - after all - an area weapon. True. In a 1:20 000 map you can plot your battery position AND the target with a bit more accurately though. I wasn't saying that mils are inherently inaccurate. In fact, I think mils are terrific and would like to see them taught in schools, but that's just me What I was saying is that the number of mils in the Finnish circle (6000) is marginally less accurate than the number of mils in the RA (and US/ABCA/NATO) circle (6400). These days it does make a difference. Back then you could dump shells by the train load and not worry about the costs. The whole comment was tongue in cheek anyway (but still true), since arty is an area weapon and 2.5% makes no practical difference. Hence the smiley. [edit]er, on re-reading you post I think you were probably teasing me back. Man. I was not sure you'd pick it up. Kind of hard to tell with you though. Well, some people would not be even willing to pick up the humour even if they were able to spot it in a statement like that. Über, remember.. ? If so, consider me to be rolling on the floor clutching my sides in laughter.[/edit] Of course, both are trumped by ° ' ", but that's just a pain to use Peace, man. insert SMILEY Not more than 8 smiley. BFC please fix or somefink !!! Time to start bugging the KB manufacturers to produce KB's with ALL the ASCII chars under its own button ?

OK, I just set up a January 1942 QB (daylight, village, heavy woods) for laughs to test out the ski troops and there was NO snow !!!

Originally posted by Keke: No, they smelled like napalm, which is the smell of victory. So they DID make moonshine when they were not using the bunker saunas ?

Originally posted by Tarqulene: What would it take for this thread to become an "uber" Finnish thread? Me ?

Originally posted by JonS: If so, this means that this Korja was set up for zero line (GT) corrections, rather that target grid (OT) correction. NOTE: Ampumasuunta at the bottom means direction of fire. Basically what happens is the OT correction is transformed into GT correction at the battery site. The FO FE shifts fire giving new coordinates relative to OT, the corrected target location is plotted directly on the map overlay at the battery site and the corrected firing solution is read from the rims and tables. That is if I got it right watching it being used. [edit]The 6000mil circle is kind of interesting too. I'm used to 6400mils. There isn't much practical difference between 6000/6400,* so it comes down to what was felt to be the easiest to use by the respective artilleries. [/edit] Might have something to do with the fact the maps were 1:20 000 * Although, 6400 is marginally (about 2.5%) more accurate. So much for the überFinns überAccuracy Oh, man ! You got us there. How on earth did they even dream before WWII of hitting a 100m x 100m target with TOT fire with the entire battalion with that kind of inaccurate mil circle ? [ October 22, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: tero ]