Tero

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I am also wondering about the exact geographical boundaries of the following: Soviet Karelia Here are some useful links: http://um1.tmt.tele.fi/finfo/english/karjala.html http://um1.tmt.tele.fi/finfo/english/karjala2.html http://www.kolumbus.fi/rastas/engcarel.html

Originally posted by Mike: I don't know that the individual soldiers are better prepared to be casualties Well, a dug in Red Army unit with a deglared mission and some leadership was a bitch to uproot because they would not surrender. Seems this is dependant on the sector and time period though. The spearhead of the attacks really leaned on the barrage. Those that thought about it a bit more tended to do better - Suvarov, Brusilov....... Which of them was the one who actually took Berlin ?

Originally posted by Mike: I don't know that the individual soldiers are better prepared to be casualties Well, a dug in Red Army unit with a deglared mission and some leadership was a bitch to uproot because they would not surrender. Seems this is dependant on the sector and time period though. The spearhead of the attacks really leaned on the barrage. Those that thought about it a bit more tended to do better - Suvarov, Brusilov....... Which of them was the one who actually took Berlin ?

Originally posted by Grisha: Glantz has Soviet casualties for the Yassy-Kishinev Offensive as a whole in When Titans Clashed.... Hope it helps. The time period is 20-29 Aug. 44. Helps out some. Only WTC is unabridged Soviet data through and through so the figures are not as reliable as the ones in Glantz's later works.

Originally posted by Grisha: Glantz has Soviet casualties for the Yassy-Kishinev Offensive as a whole in When Titans Clashed.... Hope it helps. The time period is 20-29 Aug. 44. Helps out some. Only WTC is unabridged Soviet data through and through so the figures are not as reliable as the ones in Glantz's later works.

Originally posted by Andreas: tero, no data on the Soviet casualties unfortunately. Would be nice though to know how they fared in the breakthrough phase. I have been thinking about the positioning of the guns, and it may have been a conscious design decision, to ensure that should the front on the flanks of the strongpoint be ruptured, it would still have artillery to control the breakthrough sectors and to defend themselves. Concur. They clearly did not think about the eventuality the breakthrough attack would fall there. The kind of set up they chose was designed to deal with a local (spoling) attack. Which may not have been the case had the guns been further back. Leontina was prepared for a perimeter defense. Seems so. "Not a step back" spirit shining through ?

Originally posted by Andreas: tero, no data on the Soviet casualties unfortunately. Would be nice though to know how they fared in the breakthrough phase. I have been thinking about the positioning of the guns, and it may have been a conscious design decision, to ensure that should the front on the flanks of the strongpoint be ruptured, it would still have artillery to control the breakthrough sectors and to defend themselves. Concur. They clearly did not think about the eventuality the breakthrough attack would fall there. The kind of set up they chose was designed to deal with a local (spoling) attack. Which may not have been the case had the guns been further back. Leontina was prepared for a perimeter defense. Seems so. "Not a step back" spirit shining through ?

I am about to deglare Jazza AWOL. I've sent him two Radio Check messages in two weeks already and there has been no responce. [ July 26, 2002, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Andreas: Translating the following directly: Also in support of the fascists were one detachment (Abteilung = 3 batteries) 10,5cm and three mortar batteries (no calibre, expect 81mm or 120mm) which were situated one to two kilometres south of Leontina. Can you tell why they were situated so close to the front ? And bunched up like that ? Translating again: The Soviet attack was supported by three divisional artillery detachments, connected by radio. [...] Indicating they did have the ability to call in unprepared fire missions quickly on targets of opportunity when needed. The initial barrage knocked out most of the fire support of the enemy strongpoint as well as the aritllery and mortar batteries south of Leontina.... SNIP..... 30th GAR brought in 250 (sic!) POWs and 37 guns, amongst them seven assault guns, as trophies. Would the term "paralyzed" be better than "knock out" when talking about the arty being dealt with ? Still, them being KO'd because they were so tightly bunched up and so close to the front does not surprise me. They may even have been fully functional but got overrun by the Soviet infantry, given the ferocious speed they seem to hav swept over the defensive positions. The fight must have been vicious, and quite mercyless. At 1800 hours, Leontina was cleaned of the enemy. On the battlefield, 1,200 dead fascist soldiers and officers were left. 30th GAR brought in 250 (sic!) POWs and 37 guns, amongst them seven assault guns, as trophies. Any data on the Soviet casualties in this engagement ?

Originally posted by Andreas: Translating the following directly: Also in support of the fascists were one detachment (Abteilung = 3 batteries) 10,5cm and three mortar batteries (no calibre, expect 81mm or 120mm) which were situated one to two kilometres south of Leontina. Can you tell why they were situated so close to the front ? And bunched up like that ? Translating again: The Soviet attack was supported by three divisional artillery detachments, connected by radio. [...] Indicating they did have the ability to call in unprepared fire missions quickly on targets of opportunity when needed. The initial barrage knocked out most of the fire support of the enemy strongpoint as well as the aritllery and mortar batteries south of Leontina.... SNIP..... 30th GAR brought in 250 (sic!) POWs and 37 guns, amongst them seven assault guns, as trophies. Would the term "paralyzed" be better than "knock out" when talking about the arty being dealt with ? Still, them being KO'd because they were so tightly bunched up and so close to the front does not surprise me. They may even have been fully functional but got overrun by the Soviet infantry, given the ferocious speed they seem to hav swept over the defensive positions. The fight must have been vicious, and quite mercyless. At 1800 hours, Leontina was cleaned of the enemy. On the battlefield, 1,200 dead fascist soldiers and officers were left. 30th GAR brought in 250 (sic!) POWs and 37 guns, amongst them seven assault guns, as trophies. Any data on the Soviet casualties in this engagement ?

Originally posted by Mike: We tend to think of Russians as using crude tactics and strategy, whereas they are as clever as anyone else. What made them so different was their willingness, or better preparedness to take the casualties.

Originally posted by Mike: We tend to think of Russians as using crude tactics and strategy, whereas they are as clever as anyone else. What made them so different was their willingness, or better preparedness to take the casualties.

Originally posted by Ozzy: There is only one historical truth which is teached by anybody (Unless he himself is radical in opinion or attitude. Such people exist everywhere everytime and nobody can't avoid it). Here in Finland the situation has been a little different. The official history was toned down until USSR collapsed. Until that time it was as it it was taken for granted some things about the war were tought at home. There was a rather strong leftist revisionist movement, especially in the 70's, trying to get the Soviet version of the truth superimposed over the Finnish one. Hence there were quite a few veterans remarking "I still say we won, damn it" when the Soviet version was being preached as the gospel truth. Before judging the laws and the situation in Germany I suggest you come here and study it first. Oh, sorry. I did not mean to come across like that. I'm not judging the German system in particular. I just find it a bit amusing there are people who think being subjected to restrictions of German origin are somehow worse than being subjected to restrictions of American origin. Unfortunately not. But Germans and other Europeans consider it a real problem and threat to the society, while US citizens for example mostly don't care much about Neo-Nazi activities in thier country. Who has learned better from history? You tell me. The unfortunate fact is most of the European economy is in the hands of the multinational corporations run from Japan or USA. Do you think they give a rats arse about the socionomic situation of the rank and file of the Eurpoean citizens as long as they get their cut ? I just fear they will do the same mistake the German industrialists made in the late 20's, early 30's when they picked an obscure populist as their protegee who they thought they could use like Kleenex. Not that many of them emerged after the war as paupers for that matter. As you say - from where you are standing. Obviously you are not standing in Germany, so you can't judge it. I am not judging it. Just telling how it is dealt with in the media here. Again - for historical and educational purposes no censorship is applied in Germany. Au contraire, mon ami. Only a week ago the German government has reworked the laws for archieves containing documents from Nazi and Socialist eras, making those records considerably easier to access for studies. That is good to hear. As much and as well as any other lawsuit or trial of public interest. But the proceedings are not being used as a platform for the accused so they can get their message publicized ? Nothing. The parent's right to educate and guide their children is a basic prinicple of the constitution. Over here at least there is now a bit of a cotroversy going on as to how much is the responsibility of the state and the parents. OK, many of the TV shows for children are crap and IMO sometimes even dangerous. But allowing one evil thing is not the argument for allowing another evil thing. In fact, the prohibition of one evil should be an example for the other evil Would you believe I have had more than a few words with the wife on this. She thinks I should not let my sons watch war documentaries on Discovery with me. But at the same time she lets them watch Cartoon Network unescorted. IMO at least when watching the documentary I can explain the mayhem whereas in the cartoons it goes totally unexplained. Now, which would you think are less violent from a 4 year old's POV ? OK on the channel. I as child went on the soccer court, the playground and similar. There you can work out your emotions, learn team play and compassion. No need for "artifical" violence. Don't misunderstand me. I play such games as well, but I have learned to handle it. Same here. It is not the artificial violence that is all bad, it is the total detachment from the sequence of events. Dont't think that I like CDV's decision, nor do I want to defend it. But you questioned German law in an inappropriate way, as it has served us (IMO) very well for many years. Suit you, sir. BTW: if they were shipping the game to other European countries through an European company based outside Germany which has a warehouse in say Ahvenanmaa (you know it propably as Aland), which has a special taxfree status eventhough it is a part of Finland, would they still have to ship the German version ? Or would they be able to have a separate batch of the unaltered game for the non-German market ? They would not be importing or exporting it, they would just be shipping it using a subcontractor.

Sparked by the most excellent data provided by the thread started by Andreas I looked into the subject and this question raised its head: How will these three interact in CMBB ? The Soviet mashirovka methods are being revealed but what about the different capabilities of the respective intel services to process intel data in the CMBB-relevant scope and scale ? From http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/intel/ I found this bit of data: Can anyone point out any sources on the Fremde Heer Ost and Soviet services to decipher, process and distribute tactical level data to the front line troops ? [ July 25, 2002, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Just hazarding a guess, maybe they started with the initial attack waves? In which case, they must have been much better protected by their accompanying inf than is the case in CMBO. This brings up also the question about their battlefield mobility (along with other "heavy" assets like HMG's). Are the heavy infantry assets too slow relative to the regular infantry movement speeds ?

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Just hazarding a guess, maybe they started with the initial attack waves? In which case, they must have been much better protected by their accompanying inf than is the case in CMBO. This brings up also the question about their battlefield mobility (along with other "heavy" assets like HMG's). Are the heavy infantry assets too slow relative to the regular infantry movement speeds ?

Originally posted by DrAlimantado: Unfortunately bad translations are common due to a thankless job and customers who do not like to pay for quality. Moreover the most common English-XXX-English dictionaries do not carry too much specialized jargon, especially military. If the poor sap doing the traslation has no idea what the text is all about he/she will reach out for the dictionary and pull the first equivalent listed he/she thinks is the best. I did not know if I should cry or laugh when I saw the Finnish full page add for MoH using the term mortar (denoting the old siege cannon type) as the translation. I just checked the digital dictionary I have and the term does not get translated from Finnish to English in it. The proper term for modern mortar does not appear in English to Finnish translation in it. However, the proper modern term is correctly translated when you go from Finnish to English. Also, it does not help if they try to be hip and use the most recent local slang word derived from the English original.

Originally posted by erwinl: I must say this was very exciting watching and it gave me a whole new respect for the tactical AI. Yes, the TacAI is one sorry arsed gamey mother. On a more serious note: I have noticed infantry command units forget their movement orders on a regular basis. And once I saw a command unit dash to its death in a low LOS environment when it was supposed to stay put and keep the subordiante units in CC and lace them up while they mopped the area. Other armour related AI anomalies: the AFV's never ever open up on infantry units with the main gun on their own, right ? I have seen a few of them shoot the main gun at infantry units on their own lately. [ July 24, 2002, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

My translation: Comment: "Turbaserat" might be translated as "turn based", but it's not the first association that comes to mind. A better Swedish word would be "omgångsbaserat". In three sentences they manage to squeeze in one poorly chosen word, two factual errors and a very vague actual description of the game! :mad: :eek: My comment on that site points out the most obvious errors... The price 539:- is also the most expensive game I found on that site (not doing any extensive search). The five most recent releases were less than 500, with "Spiderman" at 499 and the other about 429. The 2nd most expensive strategy game is "Black and White" at 489. I'm going to offer my help to write a better description of CM (and CMBB, once released). Cheers Olle</font>

Originally posted by redwolf: As for the size of the turret, I think you are complaining about the same thing I complained about a lot. If one tank has only 20% of its front in the turret, and another 30%, then the one with the smaller turret does not get its fair advantage since CMBO does not have a model for that. Concur. In addition, hulldown makes the problem of too simple turret fronts worse. Pz IV turret has a large gun mantlet which is 30mm in front of the 50mm turret front, but CMBO treats it as a full 50mm front. When it should be 80mm ? Can't wait to see the PzKw-III in CMBB with add on armour along the entire width of the turret taking on T-34's and KV-1's head on from a hull down position. And vice versa.

Originally posted by Andreas: The support elements would be the plethora of additional tank and artillery that I listed in the first post. OK. It was unclear if you meant the organic support elements or the general support elements. No idea what guns they were. I would suspect they were so close because this was a strongpoint in the frontline. Probably ATGs, IGs, captured Soviet 76.2mm guns etc.pp. What kind of terrain does the rounded terrain marker stand for ? Height gradient ? I would expect the heavy artillery to be further back. That would be reasonable. Still, "most" arty assets being KO'd by the perparatory barrage would suggest the arty got special attention. BTW: the reason this arty business interests me is the break through attack the Soviet troops made against the Finns in June 1944 saw the loss of most of the artillery of the formation in the focal point of the attack. But they were lost because they could not be moved out of harms way (horses and tractors detailed to farm work too far away), not because they were KO'd by the preparatory barrage. The guns were approx. 5-7 km's behind the front line because like most Finnish arty the max range of the guns was 10km's or less.

Originally posted by Andreas: The support elements would be the plethora of additional tank and artillery that I listed in the first post. OK. It was unclear if you meant the organic support elements or the general support elements. No idea what guns they were. I would suspect they were so close because this was a strongpoint in the frontline. Probably ATGs, IGs, captured Soviet 76.2mm guns etc.pp. What kind of terrain does the rounded terrain marker stand for ? Height gradient ? I would expect the heavy artillery to be further back. That would be reasonable. Still, "most" arty assets being KO'd by the perparatory barrage would suggest the arty got special attention. BTW: the reason this arty business interests me is the break through attack the Soviet troops made against the Finns in June 1944 saw the loss of most of the artillery of the formation in the focal point of the attack. But they were lost because they could not be moved out of harms way (horses and tractors detailed to farm work too far away), not because they were KO'd by the preparatory barrage. The guns were approx. 5-7 km's behind the front line because like most Finnish arty the max range of the guns was 10km's or less.

Originally posted by redwolf: The post which stated that the overall hit probablity is the same in hulldown is BS. I never speculated anything about actual hit propabilities, only about how the the silhouette figure is used in its entirety and not in part in the calculations.

Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Correct. But the silhouette value is supposedly influenced mostly by height (as it should be), and it's in the calculations to hit no matter if it's a hull down situation or not. And you see not a thing amiss here ? The height aspect is OK. But there is no distiction made as to the height of the turrets vs the height of the hulls of the respective vehicles. The height of the turret vs the height of the hull ratio is not modelled. The silhoeutte of a Sherman is 100. A PzKw-IV is 92, a Tiger is 120. The Panther is 118. IRL the Sherman is as high as any of these vehicles. IIRC the turret of the Sherman is as high or higher than any of the German turrets, but not as wide. The turret of a hull down Sherman would present a a more symmetrical target than any of the German turrets. The center point of the Sherman turret would be in the center of the turret in height and width as it is essentially box shaped (as high as it is wide). The width of the German turrets is more than the height, making the aim point harder to place in the dead center of the mass IRL for one. Now if they halve the silhouette and calculate to hit or first calculate to hit based on full silhouette and then halve gives the same result... So it is, statistically, as easy to hit the center of a target size 20 as it is a target size 40 at any given range with 10 shots ? When was the last time you were on a rifle range ? I don't see what your point is. Lets say you have a PzKw-IV (silhouette 92) in a hull down duelling a Stuart (silhouette 73) in the open. Would you say the PzKw-IV turret is easier to hit than the Stuart (as now seems to be the case in CMBO) ?

Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Reduce the height and you'll reduce the hit chance considerably! It should rather be: Hull exposed 65%, Hull down 20%. (Stationary target and gun, first shot.) The reason is that sideways is no sweat to aim, as long as there are no strong winds. Up-Down is where the range estimation plays a valid part, and make up for most of the error in aim. Indeed. Only, if I have understood this correctly, the CMBO engine does not use fractional values of the silhoutte in its calculations. A silhoutte of 40 is a silhoutte of 40, be it in a hull down or exposed position.