Tero

Originally posted by ham: It's not a question of how many tuliannos the battery has, its the question how much of its fire is given to the certain FO. True. I was trained as FO Then you should know better than me. I was only a lowly comms NCO in coastal arty. and the times I acted as the Company Chief of Fire (Tjpääl) normally a company was given 0,3-0,6 tuliannos / artillery unit on defence which was then split even more (between the fo's in the platoons and my personal reserve) and given to the individual FOs, a bit more on the attack. So if the FO's in CMBB represent just single FO, the amount of fire they posses seems about right from my perspective (of course one FO could posses fire of several arty units). The key issues are: Is it assumed the FO is directing just 2 guns (jaos/section), one full battery (4 guns) or the entire battalion (or more) ? How much should a FO have in a 20 min as opposed to a 60+min CMBB QB game. The map size. How long would it actually take in a typical QB map (say a 1 x 2 km map) to replot and execute a barrage from one side of the map to another. Or to shift it just a few hundred meters. I think it is a bit excessive to get a 1 minute delay on a TRP and then when you replot some distance from that to shift the fire a turn or two later you incur a 6min delay (happened to me last night in a 1944 Allied assault QB). The 6min delay alone made me squirm. Yes, the books say in a good day a fast replot and gambit would be around that. I do wonder how on earth a FO with a radio gets it done in 1/6th (or less) of the time.

Seems to me there are things done differently in various armies. Here is how it was (is) done in the Finnish army.

Originally posted by Foxbat: I read and I didn't see the magic formula..? Try harder ik-maps were available on average within 48 hours from the taking of the picture. It would be reasonable to think they flew recce/photo missions to scout and map out the unknown terrain of Soviet East Karelia the troops were advancing into during the attack phase (even before the hostilities started ). Also, this implies the Germans were not perhaps given the accurate Finnish maps when they were preparing the failed assault on Murmansk. Take a look at the different target types and areas. The arty shell fall pattern model in CMXX is nowhere near any of them. In CMBB you do not get the 400 75-76mm shells for a battery. Let alone the required amount of shells for the entire battalion. And they say the Americans were the masters of improvisation. As far as I can tell the unique finnish system, that had no parralel in the rest of the world, comes down to doing a lot of pre-measuring (almost ad absurdam) and pre-regestering. But that is the key !!! It is not enough to know your enemy. If you have your topographical data down you can use the full spectrum and the full potential of your arsenal to outfight the enemy. [EDIT] Not that I don't think it worked, but we were promised a system that had nothing in common with that used by other nations outside of ballistics itself (I guess this is where I should say: fix it or somefink.. but I don't know at whom ). Who said "nothing in common". You were promised a list of differences. The problem is that since most of the procedures are still semi-classified (they are still taught in the army as a back up for the high-tech systems) there is really no concise data on them, let alone in English. The Winter War site does not mention for example the special camera developed by Gen. Nenonen. I have been trying to hunt down the data on it on the net but it is elusive. The camera took two pictures simultaneously, one down and one from the horizon. It also printed the flight altitude so the horizon could be matched with other photos so the terrain elevations could be mapped out accurately enough without having to do a full ground triangulation survey. Nor is there anything about keeping record of barrel wear on each and every gun so the firing solutions could be altered accordingly.

Originally posted by Foxbat: Remember the germans have their mythical skills in panzercraft, it would be nice if one tank in each company was made elite regardless of force composition. Apples and oranges. The armour is easy to model as it is pure physics: MV, facehardened steel quality, all the nicely quantifiable and easily accessible mechanical stuff. You can be as good (or as bad) as you want since it is the pure tactical manouvering that decides if the performance of the vehicle is historically feasible (ie. use the Tiger as you would use a Hellcat and see what happens). With artillery it is totally different. It is all about procedure, working out the solutions and doing the pre-fire mission preparations. All these are outside the players control. The most important factot that decides all is whether the FO unit has a radio or if it uses land line communications. That does affect adversly the manouverability of the FO unit in the field but that does NOT affect how quick the fire mission arrives or how quick the corrections are processed. Granted the land line is more fargile but by no means were the period radios 100% trouble free. And the fact that you can triangulate a FO radio in the battle field and target it when the land line equipped FO remains undetected to electronic counter measures is not even modelled in the game. überFinnish FO's have noted that once they went on the air they could expect a hail of (accurate) mortar or arty fire on their position within minutes of their first pushing the tangent. Or what about the russian artillery practices? Why don't they get big discounts on heavy arty post-43. The cost of the arty as a weapons system is not the issue here. The issue is how well the different arty practises of the different armies are modelled when the different delays are worked out (since there is still no way to have different types of fire missions, just plain vanilla barrage). And let's not even get started on their deep battle operations, if they're attacking anywhere after 43 they're going to have a massive troop density on the axis of attack, force ratio for russian attackers should be 3:1 and 5:1 in assault (and they would need it to when the finns get free TRP's in any engagements :eek: ). Please do a 1000pts Allied assault in the summer of 1944 and see how much more the Soviets get infantry compared to the Germans or the Finns. Seriously though, I think you can see where I'm going, such changes are going to seriously inbalance the game, while the arguments for it are on shaky ground. Realism? Historical accuracy? No doubt finnish artillery practices were superior to everyone else's and they spent a lot of time on pre-regestring their fires, but that seems to indicate a lot effort (ie points) was expended on them, Most of the work was done before the war. The fact most of the battles were conducted in Finnish soil should not be a detrimental factor. It should be a bonus in fact. Furthermore there are other contributing factors that affect the use of artillery, like: http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/intel/ and that Finish doctrine was mainly defensive in nature (which would make this a bit of an odd feature in non-defensive battles). I also don't think that the Finns won every engagement they fought, which is certainly going to happen if these changes take effect. The thing is the Finnish cartography service was so effective they had maps with hex grids and names of places in them to hand out to the troops on average within 48 hours from when the aerial photo was taken. http://foto.hut.fi/seura/historia/toiminta.html (sorry, a Finnish site) The Finnish topographical mapping and aerial survey was developed in the 20's and 30's by V.P. Nenonen and his team who were also responsible for developing the Finnish artillery firing system. http://www.mil.fi/joukot/topk/sotilaskartoitus_historia.html (sorry, yet another Finnish site) [ October 17, 2002, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos: Anyway and whatever, Finns shouldn't be expecting given victories on plate and better handicaps in any area or even realistic modelling in game terms. Of course not. But since BTF is a firm believer in historical accuracy that should be observed too. The many überweirdo's on the battlefield like the mentiones sniper/sharp shooter should be just forgotten and brushed of as the weirdos they are. That weirdo must be you! There are exceptions to the rule and there are rules to the exceptions. Sometimes going with the lowest common denominator for ALL eventualities just is not good enough. The rep is there and it is up to Finnish gamers to keep it up, however unfair, unhistorical or biased the system may be . Don't whine, if you are a Finn, you are über- and it is your duty to show it on ladders, tournaments and other encounters. If you are given a single sharp shooter with a toothpick and one broken ski against an armoured enemy brigade lead by Fionn and then somefink, don't whine, just win. If the guy with the toothpick fails, it is not his fault, but yours, not living up to normal Finnish standards of überliedership! After seeing too many FT's and R-35's as the most common AFV's in too many games a game which is marketed to be the most accurate one in the market better be just that.

Originally posted by MjoLniR: I think this is an interesting thread, but would like to know if Finland had any german 88mm guns and if they had, is there any 88-s for the Finns in the game? There were some but they were used in AA far behind the front line exclusively. The reason I wonder is because I have an HE 88mm shell (the brass-case is actually not the correct one for a HE-shell, but a AT-something). I got it from a guy who claimed it came from Finland. I saw one in action in 1986 during my service when it was used as a training gun in the coastal arty so the claim might be valid.

Originally posted by Kallimakhos: Here's a doable suggestion for compromise, which might silence most of the justified gripes: give Finns TRP's say at 90% reduction in summer 1944. This will make Russians attacking Finns a hell, unfair and frustrating close to boring, if the defender knows what he's doing, you moan? Probably so, but realistic and historical. Any support for this idea? Throw in the ability to buy them in all types of battles and I think that should be at least an approximation of a workable abstracted solution. Mind you, I can not see why they should not come at a reduced price all the way from 1941.

Originally posted by Panzer76: U cant change the arty model for a nation based on the battles in one sector. Hmmmmmmm....... The Finnish army fought in the "Finnish sector" exclusively. What you are saying is the American, British, Soviet and the German arty practises should be superimposed on the Finnish just because they were used in more varied circumstances. Sorry, can't buy 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. There are some universal things like ballistics and meteorological stuff but that is the extent of the similarities.

Originally posted by Zakalwe: Maybe the delays are due to German infiltration of the Finnish artillery corps That might be it ! In at least two scenarios (Retaking Viipuri and Lake Ladoga), the info screen brings up German Infantry Spotters, when you check on your Finnish spotters. Probably a remnant of the beta days... I hope it is just that... Of course, even the improved CMBB artillery model does not accurately portray the Finnish artillery practises, particularly in the Karelian Isthmus battles of 1944. Using a lot of TRPs seems to be the best, if inelegant, solution. Looking at Veitsen Terällä you can see there were over 40 TRP style spots in the gunnery overlay in the (IIRC) approx. 3km x 3km area in Ihantala alone. That is worth over 400 points at current rate. We are looking at spending well over 1000 pts on TRP's and trenches even before we get to buy the units.... Then there is the barrage drift if you target a out-of-LOS target which is not a TRP. I think in time that will become another major source gripes. [ October 15, 2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Someone who qualified above average on the rifle range during basic training and was given a scoped rifle and told to pick his own targets. The difference in the training systems is beginning to show. Again. Reservists armies (like the Finnish army) had a large pool of non-regular, basic trained, men with a core of regulars who acted as trainers and in war time leaders. Some (many ?) of the non-regulars were qualified, above average shots. Some trained in their spare time and got even better. Refresher training was arranged from time to time. The regulars could concentrate on other, "more demanding" things like command and control issues. The Finnish sharp shooters trained on their own time at their own expence as it was their hobby/profession. How is that modelled in the game ? Professional armier had to rely on the regulars to act as specialists and the men conscripted to service at the time of war had to make do with a hasty basic training and OJT. You miss the point. Simo Häyhä may well have been a "natural sniper". But whatever he was, snipers per se are not modeled in CM. Yes. But in case you do not know Häyhä did not use a scoped rifle. He was still a sharp shooter in strict CM terms when it comes to his background. Most of the Finnish "snipers" were sharp shooters in CM terms. Sharpshooters are. This ground has been covered a hundred times now. The thing is we are no longer on exclusively Anglo-American turf now. The "universal soldier" axiom does not transcend some of the very basic differences in the training, tactics and doctrine of the different armies. People who want snipers, in the strictest sense, need to find another game. Perhaps. But since there are sharp shooters in CMBB they should act like ones. Mind you, I for one would not lose any sleep if they were stricken from the game as separate units altogether.

On arty FO delays: The Finnish FO delays seem a bit overly slow compared to the German and Soviet ones, given the Finnish artillery doctrine. Landline communications are admittedly more fragile but IMO not that much slower. There seems to be no compensation for the better site and target survey and other related things the Finnish arty did differently.

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: One problem that people make in trying to judge the effectiveness of sharpshooters in CM is that they view them as snipers. They are not trained snipers in CM, but rather skilled shooters that are picked from the ranks and sent out to plink at the enemy. In other words, this isn't their job by training. If they are supposed to be skilled shooters they still would be above average shots (as compared to the others in the force), right ? If you have a veteran sharp shooter is he a veteran sharp shooter or a veteran sharp shooter ? If you assume a sharp shooter with no sniper training (which BTW means what exactly ?) has for example some experience as in hunting would it not be reasonable to think he could rack up kills far more consistently than a man with an urban background. I understand the point Fishu is making because the greatest sniper ever, Simo Häyhä who racked more than 500 kills (yes, a bloody überFinn ), was in CM terms a regular sharp shooter with a hunting background and not a sniper at all in the strickt sense of the term as fielded here. So, was Simo Häyhä (like all Finnish "snipers" of WWII) a sharpshooter or a sniper ? In the strickt terms of the CMBX world he was a sharpshooter because he had no formal sniper training and he was a regular reservist. He was selected to act as a sharp shooter by his unit commander because he was known to be a good shot. [ October 15, 2002, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Bastables: This does not seem to be widely practiced or effective. It is quite interesting to note the Finnish tankers found the extra armour (concrete/log/extra armour in the lower hull = spare track holders in the front and between the tracks in the side) to be effective and consequently that ALL the Finnish Stugs were modified and were given the makeover.

Thank you for reminding me. Lets not forget the Komsomolets gun tractor. It's not fair to have the überFinns hump their guns around in difficult terrain when most of the others have a gun tractor or a HT at their disposal.

OK. What were the criteria when the model in the game was picked ? In the game the available Stug-III models are (from the spreadsheet) Sturmgeschütz III G (früh) Sturmgeschütz III G (früh mitt) Sturmgeschütz III G (mittel) Sturmgeschütz III G (spät mittel) Sturmgeschütz III G (spät) IMO the correct model for the Finns would be the early middle in terms of the MG. The availability is simply all wrong. The Stugs were shipped in late 1943 so there is no way they would have been available for combat duties in January 1943.

Originally posted by illo: Can you post those figures? I just read they were in use in finnish army up to 1988. Lets not forget their main function during the summer of 1944 was AA. They did shoot down a fair number of those pesky farming machines with these things. [ October 15, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by KwazyDog: Ill meantion about the MG guys, but it is unlikely at this point that the 3D model itself will be changed. What about the fact the actual model (early instead of late early) and availability itself is all wrong for the Finnish Stug ?

Originally posted by Jussi Köhler: Hehe... You are one PARANOID individual :eek: :eek: :eek: Scary stuff... I would not say he is paranoid. I think he just likes to think only the Anglo-American history writing is accurate and reliable and such a thing as Finnish history writing is folklore and old mens tales and not to be trusted. Incidentaly, I just bought Glanz's book on the siege of Leningrad and according to that book the Finnish-Soviet border in the Isthmus did not exists prior to WWII. At least it is not mentioned once in the history of the town. And there is more along those lines.... :eek: [ October 14, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Soddball: I don't think that any of these people are actual forum members. I think Tero has created 45 extra usernames and passwords and argues with himself to give the impression that the Finnish contingent here is vibrant and full of wise things to tell people. I hope you are not suggesting I am also buying all the copies of the game out over here....

Originally posted by illo: Arzi, atleast 15 Stug IIIg late with saukopf saw action in finnish armed forces. Thick concrete reinforcements at front hull and saukopf mantlet, DT machinegun, Storage box and Spare roadwheel racks. One is displayed in Bovington with all the post war stuff still in place, painted in German colours.

Originally posted by illo: Im quite sure finnish PzKpfw IVjs were never used in combat. True. AFAIK they were used against the Germans in the North. But having them around is a nice bonus, given the fact the Soviets might be fielding captured Panthers and who knows what ahistorical gamey stuff againts the überFinnish army...

Originally posted by Osmo: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Finnish Pz-IV tanks were Pz-IVJ, not the PzIVH as the game claims? I'm under the impression they were J's. A bit annoying these little mistakes, aren't they ?

Originally posted by arzi: Also StuG-III's had the machine gun in roof. Now it has nothing for close defence. And the availability is all wrong too. The BFC made a boo-boo and picked the totally wrong model (early instead of late early) for the Finns. BTW: how about those 50mm mortars ? I have a source (Jatkosodan taistelut) which states there were a grand total of 0 50mm mortars in the Finnish infantry division OOB in 1941.

Originally posted by Keke: It may well be so. From what source did you get the info, if I may ask?

Originally posted by Jussi Köhler: /** Edited: Do not confuse the fact that the Sissi is still a very "combatant" unit, not a spy. He was one of the most trained Finnish units in the wars **/ IMO a good translation for a Sissi unit would be a LRRP unit (Long Range Recce Patrol). The function of a Sissi unit would be an amalgamation of regular combat duties at the front lines, sabotage (far) behind enemy lines (a la Brandenburgers, OSS or commandoes), pursuit of enemy recce and partisan units trying to get back to their own lines (in the Finnish sector the Partisan movement was organized from across the front line and not inside the Finnish lines) and battle field reconnaisance (a la LRRP). Jääkäri is pretty much the same as the German Jaeger, your normal infantry man in the army. That is true as of today but not during WWII. Since the original Jaegers were the ones trained by the Imperial German army during WWI the tittle Jaeger was reserved for especially well trained and proficient troops. IIRC the Jaegers units were made out of the younger men of military age(also reservists). The Lahti m/30 Anti-Tank Rifle was named after its inventor, Aimo Lahti. Lahti is as well a city in Finland. In the simplest form lahti means also a bay.