Tero

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Yet another classic "Teroism" post As often is the case, you are looking at things in a black and white way and are in fact wrong. A bit of a hyberbole I know but still you did change your opinion when enough data was provided. What I always said was that in CMBO's timeframe the optics were pretty much on par with each other and/or were adequately matched to the gun system's performance abilities. We routinely dennied any and all requests for making the Germans "better" without substantial evidence. By substantial I mean quantitative and qualitative data. None was presented and therefore no changes were made. So, any and all attempts to provide and obtain quantitative and qualitative data and debate their merits on the differences in the artillery practises of different armies is basically a lost cause since you have already covered all the bases for CMBO and there is nothing that can be added to that pool of data that would make a difference in CMBB ? What you have chosen to forget is that I have *always* said we would have to do something for optics on the Eastern Front and any other game that was prior to CMBO's timeframe. The reason is that the differences in optics was too great and important. So in essence the differences in optics in Lend-Lease American stuff and German stuff are non-existent ? The problem is that hard data on optics systems is a bit hard to come by. But Martin spent a lot of time combing through various sources and worked with Charles to come up with a scientifically based system for accounting for optics. We did not just assign +1 modifier to German tanks and a -1 modifier to Soviet ones. So I have understood it. Although our data is not as good as we would like it to be, it is probably the best it can be. So far no major gripes in that department. It is also likely to make CMBB more realistic with this data than if we had either guessed or done nothing. True. What you (Tero) consistantly can not grasp is that "national bias" is what you generally advocate. No. You are biased by the term. I advocate force specific differences in performance based on qualitative and quantitative differences in training and tactical and doctrinal employment and deployment of available resources. As I see it national bias would be: "Hey, my überFinns break down under fire, BFC please fix or somefink." Or "Hey, my WaffenGrenadieres suck under heavy MG fire, please fix". And that is not what I have ever proposed. What we advocate is "national differences" based on quantifiable and qualitative research. Me too. Glad we see eye to eye on something. Although I seem to remember you were a bit along different lines not so long ago... For you this is very difficult to swallow since you have consistantly rulled out all "Western" research as being flawed, biased, and not applicable in any way (even comparatively) with anything Finnish. That is mostly because there is very little written in the English language that is from the Finnish POV, especially about the tactics and doctrine of the Finnish army in CM scale. I do contest the validity of application of facts about the Finns from German or Soviet sources because I think they are hearsay. You did have a Finnish contingent when you did the game. And the outcome was nearly perfect. But even so you guestimated the availability of the Finnish Stugs ?!? You did not think about asking them about that ? Or post about it on the board. And here we are once again defending the correctness of not introducing national bias into our simulations. It is the ONLY right way to do it. I am not saying that the game is perfect, and never will, but your record of misunderstanding the game and historical reality shows that you are far from perfect as well. Who is asking perfection ? What is being questioned is the accuracy of the modelling of the Finnish FO's given the data on differences relative to the rest of the FO's in the game. BTW: did you get to take a look at the no-show of Finnish radio FO's ?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: That is indeed the question. It is also the kind of question Tero likes to avoid having to answer. Not at all. Unfortunaltely so far much of the contributions have been on the issue of überFinns vs the World, not artillery practises of the different armies and their differences/similarities during WWII. For him it is good enough to read an account about how great Finnish artillery is and then to jump to the conclusion that it is overall better than everybody else's artillery. No. I read several accounts describing all and draw the conclusion there were similarities between the Finnish arty and the arty of Kerplakishtan but that they also did things differently compared to each other. Then I compare the notes to the way arty is being modelled in CM and I make a further conclusion there is something amiss in the way the Finnish arty is being modelled in CMBB. Since I know there are certain things (like shell fall pattern and density) that are untouchables in the model the only thing that can be affected by lobbying is the delay. So far there has not been much data on what factors were taken into account when the delay was originally being modelled except the form of communications and the organizational level. I'd love to know for example if there was quantifiable and qualitative research done on the topograhical services of the Western Allies and the Germans and how that compares with the Finnish topographical service. I know the Red Army did a lot of work mapping out the enemy positions before operations. For Tero, it is a simple matter. Finns have a kerhdujabooboo thingamabob. This made Finnish artillery fire better than before when they didn't have it. Did other nations have the kerhdujabooboo device? No. Then that means the Finnish artillery should be superior. It is not that simple and even I know it. Stop being a condescending ass. How relevant do you, as a game developer and a historian, think the accuracy and availability of accurate maps were to tactical level operations and execution of artillery fire missions ? Have you done research on how the different armies went about obtaining their maps and how accurate they were ? The Finnish army had accurate 1:20 000 maps on the most vital areas of operation already before 1939. The entire Finnish artillery doctrine was geared up towards the ability to utilize to the fullest these accurate maps. The aim was to be able to deliver accurate fire on any location on the map from any battery/battalion position in the map in the shortest amount of time possible. Furthermore the Finnish army was capable of producing and distributing to the troops adequate maps of unsurveyd areas within 48hours from the recce flight. I also know later into the war the Soviets used quite a lot of time and effort on the topographical issues when planning their operations. The only difference to the Finnish practises I know of was their relative inability to utilize their topographical data when the situation became volatile and they started advancing and things did not go accoding to plan. They did have the ability for quite fast and flexible responce but that seems to have been reserved to suppress enemy FO's and other dignitaries using radio transmitters in the combat area rather than countering the counter attacks conducted by the enemy. For that they seem to have had a different pool of resources which less agility to respond. The main concern for the Finns during counter attacks was act swiftly and not to let the Red Army infantry dig in, not the artillery barrages the Red Army could muster at short notice. If the counter attack was too late there would be serious troubles and success (if any) would come at a much higher price than it would come if the counter attack was swift. How were things done in the other armies with regards to mapping ? And what was the timeframe ? The Germans are on record for complaining how they did not have any decent maps of the Soviet territory in 1941. How about 1942 or 1944 ? From how the arty delays are modelled in CMBB I have to conclude this particular field was not considered to have been of much significance. Description after description from Finnish history books apparently tells us that Finnish artillery alone was good enough to stop Soviet attacks cold. That clearly shows Finnish artillery is superior because, well... just because! The fact is that you can look at any number of Western and Eastern front battles and see the same. In one battle during the Ardennes offensive artillery alone effectively destroyed the 12th SS Panzer Division over a period of a couple of days. On the Eastern Front the artillery bombardment preceeding Bagration wiped out the frontline positions of an entire Army Group. And the Soviet barrages pulverized the Finnish positions at the start of the summer offensive. After that their fire missions were quite heavy but could not pulverize the Finnish positions (they had not preplotted in their maps !) with quite the same efficiency. Most of their success with artillery came from firing at delayed counter attacks. The artillery slug fests after Viipuri had fallen ended up in favour of the Finns. BTW: can you give any examples of Germans using their artillery in this manner ? They are after all a major player in the CM scope. How large were the Allied target areas and what were the number shells being fired over how long a period of time ? The Finnish arty was massed on highly localized point targets no more than a couple hectares to for a short period of time to prevent local attacks from taking place. They were not normally used to suppress troops in larger areas. That would not have been very cost effective. The Western Allies had their Ultra and the Soviets their own intel operations going. Were the Western Allies and the Soviets willing or able to utilize their high level intelligence data in real time to mass artillery on point targets ? My two examples from Western and Eastern Fronts might show that artillery is really nasty, but the two nation's artillery systems couldn't be more different. And since they were THE major players in the military world their systems are the only ones that should be used as a yard stick ? Any system not complying with the priciples set down by them are insignificant and can be bypassed ? The basis of both of them was crushing weight of fire. The US was big on speedy, heavy responce in tactical (ie. CM) level, the Soviets were big on operational level concentrated deployment according to a master plan. The basis of the Finnish system was cost effective pin point accuracy in tactical (ie CM) level. Finnish sources consider the Finnish responce time to have been overall shorter and more flexible than that of the Red Army. Finnish sources also consider the Finnish arty practises to have been better than the German artillery practises which were considered to have been unsuitable for the prevailing terrain. Therefore, one has to look far deeper to figure out how they work in a CM sized battle. That is rather the point. Consequently, could you be a bit more forthcoming on the arty model in the game than the game manuals are ? Figuring things out instead of getting the accurate data on it does give rise to all sorts of conclusions that are based on impressions rather than actual data. In CM sized battle a Finnish battery (battalion IRL) would most likely be firing fire strikes or destruction fire of set amount of shells on 100mx100m targets or point targets using converging sheaf, not wide area barrages now the prevalent in the game. (Incidentaly, one Finnish artillery unit of fire was considered/calculated to be adequate for 1-3 hours of heavy fighting.) Also, for any type of battle, even a meeting engagement style engagement, there would have been a fire plan drawn with propable target locations (suspected/known enemy positions, key terrain locations and features etc) indicated as artillery TRP's.

Originally posted by Foxbat: (moving your FO's with maneauver units, which didn't happen historically). What "manouver" units ? Only one armoured unit in the Finnish army. And no APC's. Most of the rest used bicycles, horse transports or were on foot. And the US Army is on record about how the Germans did learn from Finns the proper use of mortars in woods by trailing the mortars 200m behind the units and use a trailing line to indicate distance to the mortars from the FO unit. When targeting the FO would simply add 200 (or what ever the distance was as indicated by the line) to the distance and the mortar fire would be spot on the target. [ October 21, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos: (and no disrespect Tero, you some times have a point though you often present it poorly) I do make some assumptions on the level of knowlegde of others. But I can not always write a book when I try to make a point and start it by telling how the pseudo-Finns came from the Urals. When I get my CMBB I'll show what a über kick your ass Finn I am! Wait for the challenge! You are on, pal. Just say when !

Originally posted by Foxbat: I am more than a little frustrated at the fact that after 7 pages of discussion most of the "problem" turns out to be caused by a misinterpreation of the slow attribute given to wire FOs. Well, 6 mins delivery time for a crack FO is still slow in my book. Besides these Finns are hardier than I expected, you'd think that my deluge of posts would ultimatly numb them into to submission, but no..... Our fathers and grandfathers stood against a deluge of Soviet shells and they were not numbed into submission, damn it ! [EDIT] Every time I edit my post I introduce more spelling errors.. either I'm dyslcix* or it some kind of conspiracy :eek: You are being Finladizierung-ized. [ October 21, 2002, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by JonS: you asked the rest of the world not to get ticked off with the überFinns, then proceded to exhibit exactly the same annoying behaviour as the rest of the überFinns. What kind of behaviour do you consider to be non-annoying then ? Submissive, "BFC has gotten it all down absolutely correctly, sorry about our little batch of totally irrelavant and contradictory data" style ? I remember a time when Steve cathegorically denied there was any evidence around on the differences in optics quality. Lo and behold, there are different levels of optics now in CMBB and nobody cries "national bias, national bias". Which is of course why the military world has totally rejected the radio, and moved to a tactical communications system based totally on land line. Well, the land line is still going strong even though the radio IS the best, right ? If your arse gets EMP'd which do you think will be more reliable, a land line or a radio ? In certain situations landline may be as good as radio, but it is tactically not mobile enough. Depends totally on the tactics and the level of mechanization of the army. And even the Germans developed mobile phone switchboard HT's on SdKfz-251 chassis. I wonder why ? After 10 years in artillery, these problems just don't feel too insurmountable.* Could that be because there are differences in the respective systems ?

Originally posted by Nabla: Paulaharju, Sinerma, Koskimaa: The History of Finnish Field Artillery (Suomen Kenttätykistön Historia), vol. 2 Man ! I need to get a raise so I can finally get that series. During The Continuation War, the technically high firing efficiency of the Finnish artillery could not be fully utilized due to the lack of needed communications equipment. Can you tell if that "fully utilized" refers to actual, tactical level (CM level single battery) fire missions or massing larger concentration of fire from multiple batteries on point targets under a single FO ? And while you are at it can you please translate and post a section on fireplans, co-operation with the infantry units and other relevant procedures.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Your fact quoting of response time is many times worse than what the current response time is for Finns. I had a crack FO gets a 6min delay when shifting fire from TRP some ~100meters. For example. Does not seem to be overly better than the one I mentioned. Are you arguing that we should make things worse? If you can show conclusively the average responce time under all conditions (including the topographical preparations) and regardless of the organizational level for Allied and German ordnance types was 1min into non-TRP locations anywhere in the map then so be it. Also remember that Experience setting has a lot to do with response time. I know this. I know better than that. The experience level is not the issue. Overall, my elite überFinns are elite enough. It is just my elite Germans get preferential treatment while my elite überFinns get the shft. Mind you, a crack FO gets a 6min delay when shifting fire from TRP some ~100meters ?!? Yes, that does affect all. But is as relevent as it is unrealistic for the Finns as the rest. And what is this "fast" FO you keep mentioning? The Wire FOs have a Speed (movement speed) of Slow and Radio FOs have a Speed (movement speed). I stand corrected. From now on they shall refer to fast, medium and slow responce time. As for why there are no Radio FOs for the Finns... I'll have to look into that. Please. But from one of our researchers, this is what we had to go on: "Throughout the war there was a severe shortage of radios. In 1941 there was usually one radio per batallion, but many had none and the communication was done using field phones (prone to malfunction), dispatch runners (very slow), or signal flares. In defence, specific flare signals were arranged so that the company commanders could call fire on registered targets." First: is this referring to infantry or artillery in particular or just a general observation ? One radio in an artillery battalion is going to be used to contact who ? Company commanders (not FO's) calling in arty by flare would suggest infantry is being referred to. (BTW: registered targets could also include friendly positions. Friendly positions as well as TRP's were noted on the fire plans for safety reasons and at times fire was called in on friendly positions to contain break ins or to facilitate counter attacks. Since the exact general location of the friendly positions was known they can be said to be TRP's). "Field phones prone to malfunction" is a bit vague. Yes, the line could and would get cut for a number of reasons. But I trust you are aware this was alleviated some by either time permitting building a ladder network that would allow some level of redundancy in case the line got broken in a several places (if luck would have it there would still be an intact line going from A to and/or by building extra connections between field phone switch board stations and hooking up command and FO networks together at (higher) HQ levels. Dispatch runners: propably used by an infantry force (platoon/company) CO more likely than the actual FO team. Very skow indeed. One option which is not mentioned but IMO should have been: fire direction/request from (FO) units in neighbouring sectors. Since the state of the communications was not a secret this expedient was sometimes used when it was evident the communications in the sector under attack were compromised. In par with the batteries using own initiative to fire at the sound of the guns. From the sound of it Radio FOs should have high rarity value. Agreed. Still, the thing is the Finnish sources maintain the radio was (slightly) more reliable as a means of communication but never ever have I seen the land line based communications been mentioned as being inherently slower means of communication or that the form of communication would have slowed down the gambit. The average responce rates mentioned in the Winter War site do not distinguish between radio and land line communications. Since the radios were in very short supply they in fact mean the average gambit times are almost exlusively done using wire communications. For the rewrite it would be realistic if there was a XX percentage chance a land line FO would lose his communications and ability to call in fire for say 15 mins (a time it would take a line reparation team to fix it) during a battle due to opening turn barrage and anytime his immediate location gets under heavy fire after that. That should not however cancel already started fire missions though. A failure rate for radios should also be assigned to account for athmospherics, dead batteries and other relevant reasons for the radios to go dead. But if the communications remain intact the delays should be the same for all forms of communications. Also, the korjausmuunnin is not relevant to CMBB because the game engine can not simulate multiple battery fire at all, nor can it simulate battery fire from non-FOs. Do not get hung up on the multiple battery fire too much. The ability to direct multiple batteries by a single FO was an added bonus of the korjausmuunnin. It was every bit as useful in facilitating and speeding up the fire direction when directing single batteries. It was/is not used by the FO at the FO location, it was/is used at the battery calculation team. I saw it being used this spring during my refresher training and the procedure is something like this: the (not necessarily called in by the FO) target spot is pinned on the map overlay, the rotary dial is set and the firing solution is read from the edges. A light mortar battery can do a 180º turn around and gambit on the new target in under 2 or 3 minutes. And I do understand independent non-spotted (FO or command unit) fire from batteries is something that can not be put in. I wonder why you weren't here complaining till you were blue in the face while playing the Americans or Commonwealth forces in CMBO since both of these features were absent then too After butting heads on this with Andreas among others I learned for example the Germans and the Allies in France did not have accurate 1:20 000 maps of the area of operations available to them while I knew the Finns had such maps. And I trusted the tape measure approach of the US Army was being taken into account when you did the modelling. I bet you had not even heard of the existence of the korjausmuunnin at that time. In case of the Isthmus front there were 1:20 000 maps already before 1939. Did they suddenly lose the benefits they provided,even when conducting non-assault style operations ? I do not know what kind of a survey operations the Allied and the German armies ran but if the Finnish army could for example provide ik-maps adequate (if not ideally perfect) for conduct of artillery operations (but certainly adequate enough for orienteering) in 48 hours from taking the recce photo on unknown terrain that should count for something. I knew the artillery procedures of both the Allies and the Germans differed from the Finnish one. Since the CMBO model was made to model these there was nothing major to gripe about apart from the barrage shell fall pattern, fire type and density. [ October 21, 2002, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Why did he not compare German Radio to German Wire FOs, Finnish Radio to German Wire FOs, German Radio to Finnish Radio FOs, and German Wire to Finnish Wire FOs? Because I could not find any radio equipped Finnish FO's (the text "radio" beside the ordnance, right ?) in my copy of CMBB when I tried to set up a little test in the scenario editor for June 1941, 1943 and 1944 using both German and Finnish FO's.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: You are comparing the wrong things. You should compare wire to wire, radio to radio. Not radio to wire. Why ? How much faster does a message travel on the air than along the wire to justify the longer delay for wire equipped FO's ? AFAIK both travel at the speed of light. What happens and how the data is processed at the other end is what counts every bit as much as how the data is transmitted. Reread my post on Page 7 detailing how artillery is simulated. The organizational stuff is spot on. However from http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm In CMXX terms: with no TRP In CMXX terms: with no TRP From what I can see, there is no need to make adjustments to Finnish artillery delay times or FO speeds. Perhaps you care to explain what was the command structure you based your data on when the Finnish FO delays were being modelled. Or when a Fast German FO gets his barrage with 1 minute delay even without a TRP, even in the Finnish sector. I think this is just another case of Tero wanting to inject national bias into the game. Ah, the "national bias" gambit. I prefer "force specific modifier based on actual historical data". And like the other hundred or so attempts he has made, we once again politely decline to destroy the integrity of the simulation to please him Yet you do not shun from imposing similar (if negative) national bias-like elements on the Red Army artillery without destroying the integrity of the simulation. Curious. How do you regard the korjausmuunnin and other relevant data which indicates there might make a prima face case for speeding up the Finnish FO's ?

Originally posted by Madmatt: We are planning on co-ordinating with CDV so all versions (Battlefront and CDV) of the patch are released at the same time. Hip, hip..... * Ski troops moving in a building lose their skis. Any possibility to have a "skis on / skis off" command ? * Finns can be assigned panzerfausts in the editor on or after May 1944 (but note that they should be considered very rare before July, and even then are far less common than they are among German troops). Right on ! * Finnish StuG III vehicles are now the "early mid" version, not the "early" version (note: 3D model is not changed, however). Right on ! * Finnish StuG III becomes available June 1944. Well..... better that than January 1943. * New vehicle models: BT-5 M1933, BT-5A, BT-7 M1937, BT-7M, BT-7A, T-70 M1943, Toldi II, Zrinyi, TACAM R-2, Brummbaer (mid and late), Pz IVG (mid and late), Pz IVH, Pz IVJ, Pz M15/42 738(i), Semovente L40 da 47/32, Csaba, Nimrod, Ansaldo CV-35, R-35, R-1 Tankette. Damn. All those BT's but still no Komsomolets tractor or Landsverk Anti AA tanks.

Originally posted by Pak_43: I'm afraid I just can't believe that the Finns were light years ahead of the British in terms of artillery deployment, doctrine and effectiveness... All of the supposed revelations about Finnish arty doctrine seem to be cribbed almost directly from the lesson learned by the British in World War I.. (1920? co-incidence?) Actually the doctrines and experiences of at least the Germans, the French and the British were studied. The Russian methods and experiences were well known since the developers of the Finnish arty had served in the Imperial Russian army arty corps. What must be taken into account is the fact that with a very strickt shoe string budget the Finnish arty had to come up with a method that enabled them to use what little they have with the utmost efficiency. Long, heavy area barrages were totally out of the question so instead they came up with the use of fractions of a fire unit on highly localized point targets. Was a copy or very similar to the system used by the British in World War I... Which the British had to reinvent during WWII ? All the mapping and fire control charts in the world isn't going to help fix this kind of problem.... That is why it is beneficial to get the data down correctly. I'm afraid I just don't buy the assertion that "The Finnish arty doctrine was quite unique. You can NOT apply your knowledge of German, Soviet, British and American arty doctrine to the Finnish arty." But you do acknowledge the fact there were differences between each and every apporach to solving the problems ?

Originally posted by Foxbat: I'm quite sure that fast in this case refers to walking speed, not the speed with which artillery falls onto the enemy. Nope. There are three classes of FO's in the game: Fast, Medium and Slow. The german FO's don't get shorter delay on target (if it is indeed shorter) because they don't have to unspool wire, but presumably because they are calling lighter arty, lower level arty, or calling in arty on a known position. So, due to circumstances beyond our control a German vetean 81mm mortar FO with a radio gets his barrage delivered in (say) 1-2 minutes on any target location on the map whereas a veteran Finnish 81mm mortar FO with a land line gets his in 3-5 minutes. And since finnish (and soviet) artillery practice relied mostly on wire communications the Finns get a lot of slow-FO's. AFAIK the movement speed is not what is referred to during purchase when you see the term "slow", "medium" of "fast" next to the FO. Hey wait a minute... was your entire case about the finns being disadvantadged in the artillery department based on the fact that they get "slow" FO's. That means that the misrepresentation of finnish artillery is hereby resolved, as it doesn't actually exist. Nice try....

Originally posted by Foxbat: I'm pretty sure that that was the SOP in every army by this time. By this time you mean 1936 or 1944 ? That was already in the 20's (by 1936 anyway), not 1944. Having these tactics and using them are two utterly different things, also it is obvious that these procedures were next to effectless on the attack when not all the requirments for succesfull use could be fullfilled. During Winter War. During 1941-44 there were enough guns and ammo to do it right most of the time. But is this really as bad as you claim? ie do Finnish FO's regularly have six times the delay of other (german) FO's when executing similar fire missions? How many "Fast" FO do the Finns get ?

Originally posted by Jarmo: From "Marskin Panssarintuhoojat" I got the idea the guns still had AP, even if its use was prohibited. The author seemed to doubt the order was strictly followed, given the better performance of AP shots. I'll have to read it again with a magnifying glass when I get home.

Originally posted by JonS: the things you claim for the Finnish Artillery - quick response, Check large concentrations, massive firepower, Not forgetting tight concentration of fire power on point targets even with smaller forces. The resources had to mastered and the FP was not wasted away in wide area targets needlessly. BTW: Gen. Ehrnroth has said the task of the Finnish infantry in defence was to pin down the enemy force so it could be hammered with accurate, heavy, observed artillery fire. extensive use of pre-plotted targets, That is the tricky part. As described previously the pre-plotting was not done only to plot the targets, it was done also to plot the arty positions. That way any potential target point on the map could be engaged with less delay than would have been possible if only the targets had been plotted. wide-ranging FOs, Not sure what you mean by this. good-to-excellent communications, The Achilles heel. Then again there were times when the batteries engaged targets on their own, if they had no FO on the line, based on the sounds of the firing. Don't rightly know if the other armies did that at all. variety of distributions, That I know is not unique. But I do not know if a converging sheaf for RA for example targeted a 100m by 100m area. particularly from mid-'43ish, and the American artillery from a bit later. None of it is unique to the Finnish Artillery. True. But the arty procedures in 1939 were pretty much the same as they were in 1944. The only significant changes were the increased volume of fire and the introduction of the korjausmuunnin in 1943 which made it possible to mass even more guns under just one FO on a single point target. Note; I am not saying that these things shouldn't be represented in the game. In fact, I've been angling for a better artillery model in CM since ... um ... 1999 I think. I hear you, brother. However, saying that the überFinns were the only ones that managed to figure this stuff out, and that not including it in CM for them (and them alone) shows some kind of bias, is wrongheaded on your part. Be proud of your nations military heritage (and there is much to be proud of), but don't lose perspective over it. The überFinn theory is not of our making. All this is directed at the excessive delays given to the Finnish FO's compared to the rest of them. Since at the moment the only deciding factor is the presence or absence of the radio our (well, at least my ) take is to prove the point that even though the Finnish arty relied on the land lines the delays of the Finnish arty now in the game are being missrepresented in the game now.

Originally posted by JonS: * Well, sort of. Was reading the NZ Official History for Artillery. 2(NZ)Div worked closely with the Canuckians for a few months in Italy, and commented on the difference in the way they used their artllery. Same words and procedures, different application and effects on the ground. interesting. I hope you see the light now.

Originally posted by Foxbat: Provided of course that some more info about the Korjausmuunnin surfaces You'd think there were some pictures of it around without someone having to go to the museum to actually take one a post it on the net, wouldn't you ? and it can be coded into the game engine, A few guys with a slide ruler, a map and some paper came up with it. How hard can it be ? and BTS can be sold on this. Pandemonium !!!! And very little info on artillery practices of other countries to provide the neccesary contrast. Oh ? I have always been under the impression the slideruler approach of the US Army was the high mark in ingenuity in this field....

Originally posted by Simon Fox: But they couldn't be absolutely sure about that because they don't seem to have done any kind of comparative analysis of organisational and communications structures. The analysis were done alright. But who decides whos systems was better, the Red Army's or the Finnish army's ? The Red Army system was built to respond to the needs of their MO, the Finnish army system was built to respond to the needs of our MO. Just like the systems of every other army was built to respond to the need of their respective armies. The fact still remains the systems were distinct and different. The main gripe here is the German FO with a radio in Finnish sector gets his barrage with a 1 min delay while the Finnish FO with a land line gets his with a 6 min delay. The problem is the delays should be reversed because the basic differences in the procedures and level of preparedness which has nothing to do with the fact the other is carryin a radio and the other is hauling a land line. They might also be able to comment upon the Germans and their arty practices since they had an opportunity to observe them fairly closely. Yes. But that also entails the comments are relevant in the terrain on the Finnish sector. However, when it comes to the practices of any other nation they don't have a clue and flounder around in a morass of ignorance and chest beating fuelled no doubt by whatever throat searing concoction they guzzle down over there. You forget the fact the mightiest force in WWII got denied twice by this ignorant, chest beating fuelled no doubt by whatever throat searing concoction we guzzle down over here. Most people in such a situation would reserve their judgment based upon lack of knowledge but not this lot, they just go ahead and proclaim the "uberness" over the entire rest of the planet based upon the fact they managed to give one of the participants of WWII a bloody nose on a few occasions. Hmmmm.... the Germans tackeled this same participant (of their own volition) and they got mangeled and dismembered for their efforts. Our lot kicked the arses of the Italians, Germans, Austrians, French and Japanese in WWII without the benefit of discount rate TRPs and there's no wood to make toothpicks in the desert so we had to make do with grains of sand. So there! And our lot kicked the arse of the Red Army. Twice. With only the fraction of the resources available to your lot. Without the benefit of discount rate stabilizers and there were no resources to build "proper" VT fuses so we used the regular ones instead.

Originally posted by Foxbat: Whether or not Finns should get 0bertillery Getting one with the original topic: The Finnish 75mm AT model 98/38 is shown having AP shots. The use of AP shots for that particular model was prohibited because of the violent recoil could damage the undercarriage. HEAT was the only AT munition that was allowed to be used. In the interest of historical accuracy the AP shots for this model should be taken out. [ October 18, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Foxbat: Other than three years in static positions spent stockpiling, mapping and fortifying Since the tactics and doctrine were so damned good the time was spent stockpiling, doing chores, mapping and on farming holidays back home. Fortifying was for sissies. (NOT sissis )

Originally posted by Sardaukar: What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability. Which were BTW not drastically changed between 1939 and 1944. Some fine tuning was done but the basics remained the same.

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Okay, now lemme get this straight. Finnish books are always right, Western books (is Finland near China), are always wrong. Nope. They are not wrong when it comes to the events and stuff from their own sphere. When it comes to stuff out of that sphere they are inaccurate at best. And Anglo-Americans are not alone in the Western hemisphere. The German sources fter WWII pertaining Finland were filled with sour grapes and luckily over the years the Anglo-Americans have used them to fill in the gaps. Now that the Russian archives are starting to open they are sure to get a second opinion. I just wonder why they are not using the Finnish archives when speaking about things pertaining Finland. Glanz's book from year 2000 on the siege of Leningrad (which BTW used 0 Finnish sources) stated the Red Army lost nearly 50 000 men during Winter War. In the same book he quotes Krivosheev who has concluded the correct number is closer to 130 000. In the same book there is not even a footnote to reveal the Soviet Finnish border was close to the city. And Glantz is supposed to be the crem-de-la-crem in matters of Red Army during WWII in the West. On a previous arty debate somebody mentioned Hoggs book on arty in WWII (which I have yet to procure). Apparently on that occasion the deciding factor was the amount of pages a nation gets in the book. Finland did not get many pages where as the big ones got pages upon pages of data. I doubt all the 60-odd makes and models (Soviet, British, American, German, Swedish, domestic etc) the Finnish arty used got mentioned in that book. And I am sure there was nothing about the correction-rectifier (korjausmuunnin, my translation) device which made it possible for the Finnish army to have multiple battalions fire TOT missions on point targets under one FO's command quite sometime before the Americans were able to do that.

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: Don't believe his lies ! Don't ever trust a sly American ! Well, at least he did not wish me to move to the Washington area.

Originally posted by Panzer76: Im sorry, I dont buy the "uber Finn" thing. What überFinn thing ? I have never stated the Finns were superior just because. I have always maintained there are differences in training, tactics and doctrine of different armies. If the Finnish army of WWII was dropped in the middle of the Western Desert or the steppes of Southern Russia to fight the Germans, the British or the Soviets all their training, tactics and doctrine would have been totally out of place. Unfortunately that is not how it happened. Just because your Anglo-American histories claim yours were the best, the brightest, the quickest, the meanest and the most resourceful and all round Best. Or the Germans were but they were evil and destined to fall. That does not take away the historical facts in the Finnish books pertaining these matters. I find it more than a bit odd people feel offended if somebody claims there were differences between the armies which have very little or nothing to do with the tech-spec of the hardware. You take for granted the performance of the German panzers had perhaps more to do with the tactics than the actual tech spec of the vehicles. How could it not be that there were differences in the performance of the different artillery arms despite the tech-spec of the guns used were all close to each other (MV, range etc). In CMBO the Americans got the VT fuse (tech-spec) but the rest do not get airbursts eventhough it is totally doable with regular fuses. Is that bias ? And asking to be able to get KV 2s etc just because there were 1 or 2 tanks like this captured.. I dont know. There were only 144 tanks in the arsenal. Most of them were T-26's. The two KV-I's make out almost 30% of the entire invetory of heavies in the Finnish army. What kind of a percentage did the Jagdtiger (or better yet the Maus) make of the German inventory ?