Tero

Originally posted by John Kettler: I think that instead of increasingly heated debate here the modders should straightaway start collecting Eastern Front pictures of German soldiers wearing civilian gear including women's fur coats and even fox stoles for the inevitable winter '41 mod. This would be both historically correct and fun. For the Winter War mod the "model Cajander" (civvies except for a cocard on the hat, belt and perhaps an ammo pouch supplied by the army) uniform would be a must. [ February 11, 2002, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by illo: Yes i know what to put on if i go outside to -30C and want to stay there all day. But does it make me superhuman?? ...i guess not. Of course it does not make you a superhuman. But after laying in the snow for 45mins of the 60min CM battle you will be in better shape than your guest from central Europe wearing what he has brough along. And after that battle you know that there is at least chance of getting into a warm half-platoon tent or korsu instead of having to sit by a huge fire in the open or having to squeeze in into a house in a village standing out in the middle of the steppe like a sore thumb begging to get shelled. But all these things can be taken care of with good scenario design. (unit morale and fitness levels) The standard BTS solution. The thing is I for one sincerely hope we do not have to set up ALL the battles, including and especially QB's, involving Finns in the Scenario Editor if we want to get the variables historically accurate enough. But anyway it is stupid to say FINNS were something different from other countries which should be treated differently in gameplay...utter BS. I'm sure that german troops with decent clothing, warm place to sleep/dry in fight as good as finns or soviets of equal combat experience. Of course. But I trust you are fully aware of the Finnish not-so-high opinion of the veteran German troops when it came to such things as noise discipline and suitability of the German personal gear to the prevailing terrain and conditions. And I think you summed it up good: with decent clothing, warm place to sleep/dry in. When did the Germans get these in place ? Terve vain...olkaa nyt ihmisiksi! Jos jenkit kiihkoilee ei meidän tarvitse...eihän? Kukas sen kissan hännän nostaa, jos ei kissa itse. [ February 11, 2002, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Indeed there were two Soumi MPs The Modell 1926 Which was not very common. The Modell 1931, 20-71 rounds, 800 rpm, 578 J (9x19 ammo, 380 m/s) I have seen a figure of 396 m/s for the MV and 900-1000 (the 1000 figure having been a one time test result I think) for the rpm.

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: In the autumn and winter of '44-45 American troops suffered a very high attrition rate from trenchfoot and frostbite. Most Americans fighting in NWE weren't familiar with the rigors and hazards of long-term exposure to the cold and damp. I was quite amazed to find out the root cause for this was the preference given to ammo and munitions transports over the winter gear for the infantry. By the same token, the basic equipment of the various armies which suffered from cold were not designed to perform in such conditions. Nor were the troops trained (or weened ) to be mindfull of such things as wet socks when the temperatures fall under freezing point. To actually make a point here... I agree with Soddball that there really shouldn't be any favoritism with nationalities during the winter. The new 'fitness' quality takes care of simulating that point, not some generic 'superiority' modifier for certain nationalities under certain weather conditions. If you believe that the Germans aren't prepared as they face the oncoming Russians, then (as a scenario designer) reduce their 'fitness rating' to a level that shows their long term exhaustion, cold and malnutrition. I generally agree. But I would not dismiss the feasibility of automatically stripping the Germans of the best fittness levels during the winter months of 1941-42 and to some extent 42-43. This is because while it may be said the Germans came off warm shelter to fight that particular battle they simply did not have the appropriate gear to make that fitness state last more than a few minutes in -20º x wind chill factor. [ February 09, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Soddball: I just find it thoroughly wearing whenever a Finn claims that their nation should have better x, y, z, or should be able to fight better, harder, faster, or whatever. Tero, I have noticed, is particularly guilty of this. If you have actually read my posts I have never claimed such things. That is just the popular belief brought on by me substituting the word "American" with the word "Finn" where I feel it is justified. The American histories say the American x, y, z (like arty) were better (indeed the best in the whole wide world) and the American GI's were the ultimate examples of battlefield adabtability. Why shouldn't I be be allowed to state the same for the Finns ? Or should I start calling everybody stating the US arty was the best a national biggot and a racist just for saying it ? BTS are vehemently opposed to wholesale national modifiers. So am I. I, unlike BTS, am however a strong believer of the fact that there were fundamental (quantifiable) differences in the tactical and doctrinal training of each and every national army. The question is how to select the criteria. The German army was propably the best in the bussiness when it came to combat in the Central European style terrain in 1941. How much of that experience carried over and was even relevant in the vast expances of the Russian steppes, bogs, marshes and forests ? How much allowances should be given to troops who have trained in these conditions using tactics and doctrine specifically modified to suit these conditions. I never said the Finnish army excelled or would have excelled in the open steppes of Southern Russia. Frontal assaults over open spaces were not performed if a covered route was found to a suitable point where you could breach the defensive line and roll it over from the flank(s). I have no objections to patriotism, in its place, but trying to suggest that Finnish soldiers were invincible, or were supermen, is wrong. Who is even suggesting such a thing ? The fact is the combat experiences of the men in the Finnish army adhered to some extent to the universal experiences as presented around the world. It is as important to acknowlegde also the fact that each and every army had different experiences under similar conditions and circumstances. How do you think the Finnish army took out ~1200 Soviet tanks during Winter War with only about two 37mm AT-guns per regiment and no armour ? The accepted general opinion is an mechanized force outfights a non-mechanized force hands down. In (say) 95% of the cases that may be true. How do you account for the remaining 5% and how you let it affect the computer modelling is up to the design staff. What do you do if you have examples of conditions that would generally give the mechanized force a hands down victory and against all odds the mechanized force fails. I'm not disputing that the foul weather in Russia helped the Russians beat the Germans, or that it helped the Finns beat up the Russians. What I do object to is the suggestion that the mechanics of the game ought to be shifted in favour of one side or another to suit the historical outcome. Ay, there is the rub. How does one define historical (or appropriate/correct) outcome ? All the signs, portents and precedents indicated the Red Army would arrive in Helsinki by December 15th, 1939. Again, in the summer of 1944 all the signs, portents and precedents indicated the Red Army would cut through the Finnish army like a hot knife, as it had done so against the better equipped Germans. The überFinns did not lose one tank to the roving IL's during the summer of 1944. I'll be properly outraged when this happens in CMBB and I will promptly launch a campaing to remedy this ahistorical occurance. [ February 09, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Again the überFinns sweep the table ? Lets not forget the Suomi SMG: 72 round drum (Soviets copied it for the PPSh) 9mm (vs 7,something mm for the PPSh) = that much more Eo over the PPSh. Captured PPSh's were converted to 9mm, and after a while somebody realized the Soviet magazine could take the 9mm ammo without any modifications (being a copy of the Finnish design). The barrel needed to be replaced of course.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. A single HMG can not deny movement a large expanse of open terrain against a large number of well trained, good condition, adequately commanded troops spread out over a long extended line all on its own. This is especially true if the gun jams since there is no "backup". 2. A single HMG can severely retard an large advance over a large expanse of ground all alone. 3. A single HMG can knock out a significant number of men in this situation. 10% casualties all on its own in this situation is pretty good IMHO. Remember, the Soviet troops weren't walking to their death like automatrons, but instead were using skilled combat movements to advance over terrain under fire. So please don't compare these casulties to German accounts of Human Wave attacks from 1941! What about the differences between watercooled and aircooled HMG's ? How would a German HMG team using a captured Maxim manage itself in a test like this ?

Originally posted by Madmatt: Planes also have a durablity rating now that allows damage to them to be better tracked (although unviewable to the player the game keeps track) and just like in CMBO they can get spooked off/damaged by AAA and abort or be shot down. Will the different vulnerabilities of different models be in: Stukas easier to shoot down during the dive and pull up and the IL-2 having a vulnerable plywood tail etc. ? Will there be a difference in the varied proficiencies of the AA stuff based on the year ? By 1944 the IL-2 vulnerable tail gets targeted instead of the armoured tub.

Originally posted by Treeburst155: Keep me informed on the Torbhen situation. He may just find his way back to the friendly lines. Fight ON!! Torbhen called in. He apparently became a farher last week. A plausible excuse I quess but I at least had a 9 month warning period before the big day arrived. I hereby request a continuance on this one. We are at turn 10 and things are just heating up...

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Ah.... couldn't wait, so I did a quick test..... Just out of curiosity, could you do the test again ? This time you'd split the German squads and form a proper defensive line of the half squads (preferably in a slit trench). Just to see how the set up playes out. Pretty please...

A "I'm thinking of posting Thorbjörn AWOL... going once" bump.

Originally posted by Andreas: I would also be interested in an assessment of 120mm mortar effectiveness against dug-in troops. My suspicion is that it is not high. It lacks the MV of regular field arty. That would make it rather ineffective against fortified (concrete) bunkers. Earthen/wooden bunkers are a different thing but I'd say the concussion effect would play a bigger role than the fragmentation effect in either case. The angle of attack of the shell is so steep they would propably get inside slit trenches easier than the field arty rounds. Also, if the defenders can not hear the round leaving the tube chances are the first rounds could score more kills before the defenders have time to take cover because mortar rounds give practically no advance warning before detonation.

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Still, I cannot fathom how infantry-heavy forces can be effective on a map with anything less than medium trees. After all, if you are the kind of player which relies on your infantry taking over an area, you have to be able to move mass amounts of infantry to a spot without being shot up in the process. I have a theory. You can do that if you work the system (in a positive manner). For one the map lack debth. Use that to your advantage. Select a route that gives you best possibility to use LR suppression against the defender. Punch through at the point of your choosing instead of trying to outflank the defences. More often than not the defender has to react and start moving the assets around which in turn denies them the benefit of foxholes etc. Also, you make sure you get a force with minimal or small movement delays (5-8 sec or so). And you keep moving. Bunching them is not YOUR problem if you get them out of the focus of an OBA barrage. By bunching up you also inundate the enemy with multiple targets. Getting suppressed is not major a problem as you have all units under CC at all times. You obtain local superiority and overcome defender piece meal. Seems Mr Swamp has read his Sun Tsu and Clausewits. Usually, this is done through suppressing fire from one's own support. Now, if you don't have any of this, then you'd have to rely on arty to do the work. But how many turns of arty does one have in a game? Not much. Even if you maxed out all your points, I can't see it being enough to carry you throughout the game, especially if you use a portion of that on arty big enough to break your opponent (i.e.--larger than 81mm.) That is not relevant. What is relevant is the OBA delay. Disregarding TRP's (and you make sure the type of battle denies them from your opponent ) the Ami 81mm has a 58sec delay while the German will have a minumum of 1min delay. And a bunched up infantry force can run far in 60 secs. The max time underfire you risk is indeed not more than a few turns. Furthermore, if you manage to get the force under a barrage all is not lost the barrage intensity "favours" bunched up forces. If you survive (which is more likely than not) it the enemy is up **** creek. With no OBA left to boot. Outch time ! It's questions like these that makes this strategy all the more perplexing in regards to how effective it's supposed to be. His tactics and strategies sound familiar. And out of place. More like Somme, 1916 than Caen, 1944. [ February 07, 2002, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Anybody ever hear a Priest or other Allied open topped AFV getting killed in this manner ?

Originally posted by DrAlimantado: If you join a Nordic championship, you might want to adjust to the Nordic cultural traditions. You know, cultural sensitivity and all that. Outsiders might call it cultural IN-sensitivity. We take things like seeing ones parents naked as being totally normal for crying out loud. And I at least think seeing splatter gore in TV and movies is more obscene than some glimses of pubic hair and other human reproductive organs.

Originally posted by Kingfish: Whoa there! I meant that as a compliment. Mostly. I joined this tourney to help you guys out. Treeburst said nothing about pulling things out of people's arses! I trust you are willing to shaft any opponent so is it really that different to pull something out than shove something in ? I live in West Palm Beach, so you may want to rethink that If you can provide the transportation I will bring the beer and the pretsels.

It would be neat to be able to generate and use maps from scanned topographical maps.

Originally posted by Juha Keratar: any news from Torbjörn? Radio silence since Jan 31st. And BTW: I vote blackout.

Originally posted by WineCape: I see things are going/progressing nicely here - good! Also noticed that a dangerous shark called KingFish has pitched up in the cold Nordic waters, obviously thinking that warm currents are flowing around the Baltic! Well, he just managed to pull a rabbit out of my arse in the Meeting of the Devils scen by convincing the AI to quit 5 turns ahead of schedule and when his troops were hurting more than mine but still holding on to the flags. Talk about a lucky break. I may have to demand a recount...

Games against Cogust and Stefan finished. Games against Lunael and Kingfish progressing nicely and they should be finished in time. Torbjörn keeps dropping out of sight for days at a time and we may have to ask for a continuance for this game.

Originally posted by Simon Fox: Timid German performance in night combat has been widely commented upon in both British and Commonwealth sources and is related in accounts stretching from early 1941 (Greece and North Africa) to 1944/45 (NWE). Finnish sources comment upon the poor German performance in forest combat. They surmise one of the main reasons for this was psychological. The Germans supposedly had a fear of deep woods (a sort of Hansel and Gretel syndrome ? ). Better C3 should not be an issue because the Germans had more radio equipment than the Finnish troops. Did they have a need to see what they were doing to be able to visualize it ? The Germans excelled only in day time, preferably in perfect summer weather conditions in a familiar (or comparable, arid but not arctic or subarctic) terrain ? Right ? [ February 04, 2002, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by patolino: But anyway, your body gives off heat for one. And even in the winter dark materials will absorb heat from the sunlight. You can actually feel pretty comfortable in moderate cold like -15 to -20 cent if you stay in a spot where the air stays still and keep soaking those bright day rays with dark clothing. And once you have worked up a sweat you will propably freeze to death during the night. Layered clothing (preferably made out of natural materiels like wool) is pretty much the only the proper way to keep warm.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK, I agree with most of your points about my statements. I'll be damned. Although, the "home depot" thing I still disagree with you to the extent that scrounging for parts is inherently more difficult to do vs. having stock parts (captured, bought, or self produced). Concur in principle. I think it is a question of availability and where the stocks are. You can get your logistics system overloaded with the sheer number of different models which you have to supply with spare parts from across the continent. Or get the logistic system interdicted and disrupted along various points of the flow to the extent there is a need to make the critical decision what has to be transported first. The problem with big vehicles is that scrounging for parts was extrordinarily difficult to do in reality on any scale worth mentioning. Do you consider cannibalizing of domestic vehicles in forward repair facilities to be a different matter alltogether ? I do not. The only major difference is the repair people have to go up to the front line to cannibalize KO's enemy vehicles. Bringing back just the scavenged parts you really need is far more easier than transporting the entire vehicle back to the facility. Having even a simple bearing break could render a tank useless until another one was secured. The more difficult it was to secure it, the more difficult it would be to keep that vehicle in service. That is where depots come in, with home depots being more capable than those in the field. Concur. Only, the fighting unit is in the field and not back home next to the stock of spares. Or if it is then something has gone terribly wrong. Or right. We always try to do this, for all nations, to the best extent possible. As I have said earlier, you must remember that the issues relating to Finland also apply (perhpas more so) to Romania and Hungary, not to mention Germany to some extent. Agreed. But the basic burden the others had (the sheer diversity of models and calibers) did not take place in the Finnish Army in a manner that was perceived to be restrictive or prohibitive. It was not allowed to be or become restrictive or prohibitive. Another is the fact that nothing that was peceived to be of value was discarded until it was hopelessly out of date or a better model was aqcuired (received as a gift, purchased or captured) in sufficient numbers and sufficient level of ammo. Incidentaly, I'm reading the history of the Finnish 1st Div and there are remarks how a unit in retreat during the summer of 1944 was cut off and basically up **** creek and what enabled it to go on fighting and eventualy saved it was the fact they secured ammo from a Red Army supply column. Inherently, that is true. However, as we have discussed in the past you can not think that the unique experiences in one spot in one set of conditions is automatically applicable in another. What makes the Finnish experiences unique ? You are willing to entertain examples from the Western Allies, the Germans and the Red Army but when an example from the Finnish sphere of experience is introduced you almost invariably claim it is not relevant. Why ? For you, your focus is Finland. For me, it is the entire war, but in particular the Eastern Front. Your input about Finland's part is very much valued, but if I did not keep it in perspective as it relates to things (which I might know more about than you even) then I am not doing my job as a researcher, historian, and game designer. I abhor the all-encompassing "all things being equal" which gets used frequently on this forum. This is because all things are not equal. You look at the big picture and you try to define things according to certain criteria. You try to make everything fit into that one picture as it were. And that picture and scope seems to be combined arms operations. Our army (being a reservist army) had trained before the war to act without much help from armour and artillery. Our artillery was in par with the best of them when it came to procedure and doctrine, only during Winter War it lacked the means to deliver the best it could have delivered. Later our army could muster both a decent armoured force and a sufficiently lavish artillery support. Yet the prewar training, tactics and doctrine of the infantry remained basically the same. The Germans noted most of the Finnish troops knew nothing about armour-infantry co-operation. And this was true. But that was not much of a handicap when most of the time there was no armoured support. What hurt more was the lack of effective infantry AT assets, both during Winter War and in the summer of 1944. During Winter War the situation remained critical but during the summer of 1944 the situation improved dramatically when the man portable, short range stand off AT weapons became available. And here it comes out again You claim you are not biased, yet you have repeatedly announced that you basically dismiss anything "western" as inherently flawed. To this I, and many others, have said "BS". All sources, even Finnish ones, have to be looked at with a questioning eye. To dismiss any source, Western, Finnish, or Soviet, based on its origin is racist/nationalist/braindead. Nononononono. I said I do not show "proper" respect, I do not dismiss it as inherently flawed. There is a difference. You might have found that Western coverage of Finland to be flawed compared to domsetic sources, which might very well be true. But to apply your vehment, often stated disdain for Western research in general, even when it applies to things which have everything to do with their first hand experiences, seriously compromises your ability to be taken seriously in regards to historical research, perspective, and opinion. You don't even bother to say why you don't agree with it, which would at least get you some respect, but instead dismiss it out of hand. Not good. As I said I am currently reading the history of the 1st Division of the Finnish Army. In the back there is a list of the divisions KIA, DOW and MIA listed by parent unit, date of death (actual or court order), giving rank, name and place of birth from 1941 to 1945. The only place I have seen a similar list in an Anglo-American history is a book on the US airforces during the Vietnam war where they listed all the US MIA. I have studied some history, including methodology and source critique. My disdain as you call it is based on scholarly criteria, not on the origin. Having been acclimatized to the level of accuracy as presented by the books mentioned above I find it really difficult to accept statements inferring (for example) Allied losses are indetermineable for such and such period of time or for this particular operation. This seems to have been because all the histories use the same sources and uphold the party line as established during and right after the war. The technical data is on the money, no question about it. Edited: But if in a popular history book like the Steel Inferno the author states in p.215 (paperback edition) on the heavy bomber attacks during Goowood "The results of these attacs have described many times before and there is no need to repeat them in detail" and in p. 230 "The strategic results, failures, successes and implications of this operation have been discussed many times. This author will confine himself to four basic statements." Remarks like this make the hair in the back of my neck curl on end. Not because the author is Anglo-American, but because these sentences assume certain things as givens from the reader. They also imply that there are still aspects that are too delicate to be handled impartially. These two sentences quite ruined the book for me despite its excellent attention to detail elsewhere. Uhmmm... where did you dig this crap out from? The SMG was not a flawed concept, but it had its limitations like everything else. And the fact that no nation uses SMGs for its frontline main smallarm, in my mind, underscores this to the extreme. If SMGs were the best weapon in the world to use, forces would be armed with Uzis and MP5s. They are not, and there are reasons for that. However, they are also not without their benefits, which is why small "elite" units still use SMGs as their primary weapon (at least for some situations, like urban warfare). Concur. However, how many of the assault rifles in service today do NOT have a possibility to select fullauto ? You decided to limit the ammo for the SMG but you apparently did not increase the FP rating as a compensation. Why ? HAHA!!! This is so ludicrous it is making me really blurt out laughing here Tero, please do a Search on this Forum on SMGs and see how much abuse we have taken (not just criticism, but outright abuse) for the way we have simulated SMGs in favor of the Germans and to the detriment of the Allies. Also check to see how many people feel that CMBO unrealistically rewards rushing tactics and unrealistically penalizes walking fire. So why do the running units not fire at all ? [ February 03, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK, I agree with most of your points about my statements. I'll be damned. Although, the "home depot" thing I still disagree with you to the extent that scrounging for parts is inherently more difficult to do vs. having stock parts (captured, bought, or self produced). Concur in principle. I think it is a question of availability and where the stocks are. You can get your logistics system overloaded with the sheer number of different models which you have to supply with spare parts from across the continent. Or get the logistic system interdicted and disrupted along various points of the flow to the extent there is a need to make the critical decision what has to be transported first. The problem with big vehicles is that scrounging for parts was extrordinarily difficult to do in reality on any scale worth mentioning. Do you consider cannibalizing of domestic vehicles in forward repair facilities to be a different matter alltogether ? I do not. The only major difference is the repair people have to go up to the front line to cannibalize KO's enemy vehicles. Bringing back just the scavenged parts you really need is far more easier than transporting the entire vehicle back to the facility. Having even a simple bearing break could render a tank useless until another one was secured. The more difficult it was to secure it, the more difficult it would be to keep that vehicle in service. That is where depots come in, with home depots being more capable than those in the field. Concur. Only, the fighting unit is in the field and not back home next to the stock of spares. Or if it is then something has gone terribly wrong. Or right. We always try to do this, for all nations, to the best extent possible. As I have said earlier, you must remember that the issues relating to Finland also apply (perhpas more so) to Romania and Hungary, not to mention Germany to some extent. Agreed. But the basic burden the others had (the sheer diversity of models and calibers) did not take place in the Finnish Army in a manner that was perceived to be restrictive or prohibitive. It was not allowed to be or become restrictive or prohibitive. Another is the fact that nothing that was peceived to be of value was discarded until it was hopelessly out of date or a better model was aqcuired (received as a gift, purchased or captured) in sufficient numbers and sufficient level of ammo. Incidentaly, I'm reading the history of the Finnish 1st Div and there are remarks how a unit in retreat during the summer of 1944 was cut off and basically up **** creek and what enabled it to go on fighting and eventualy saved it was the fact they secured ammo from a Red Army supply column. Inherently, that is true. However, as we have discussed in the past you can not think that the unique experiences in one spot in one set of conditions is automatically applicable in another. What makes the Finnish experiences unique ? You are willing to entertain examples from the Western Allies, the Germans and the Red Army but when an example from the Finnish sphere of experience is introduced you almost invariably claim it is not relevant. Why ? For you, your focus is Finland. For me, it is the entire war, but in particular the Eastern Front. Your input about Finland's part is very much valued, but if I did not keep it in perspective as it relates to things (which I might know more about than you even) then I am not doing my job as a researcher, historian, and game designer. I abhor the all-encompassing "all things being equal" which gets used frequently on this forum. This is because all things are not equal. You look at the big picture and you try to define things according to certain criteria. You try to make everything fit into that one picture as it were. And that picture and scope seems to be combined arms operations. Our army (being a reservist army) had trained before the war to act without much help from armour and artillery. Our artillery was in par with the best of them when it came to procedure and doctrine, only during Winter War it lacked the means to deliver the best it could have delivered. Later our army could muster both a decent armoured force and a sufficiently lavish artillery support. Yet the prewar training, tactics and doctrine of the infantry remained basically the same. The Germans noted most of the Finnish troops knew nothing about armour-infantry co-operation. And this was true. But that was not much of a handicap when most of the time there was no armoured support. What hurt more was the lack of effective infantry AT assets, both during Winter War and in the summer of 1944. During Winter War the situation remained critical but during the summer of 1944 the situation improved dramatically when the man portable, short range stand off AT weapons became available. And here it comes out again You claim you are not biased, yet you have repeatedly announced that you basically dismiss anything "western" as inherently flawed. To this I, and many others, have said "BS". All sources, even Finnish ones, have to be looked at with a questioning eye. To dismiss any source, Western, Finnish, or Soviet, based on its origin is racist/nationalist/braindead. Nononononono. I said I do not show "proper" respect, I do not dismiss it as inherently flawed. There is a difference. You might have found that Western coverage of Finland to be flawed compared to domsetic sources, which might very well be true. But to apply your vehment, often stated disdain for Western research in general, even when it applies to things which have everything to do with their first hand experiences, seriously compromises your ability to be taken seriously in regards to historical research, perspective, and opinion. You don't even bother to say why you don't agree with it, which would at least get you some respect, but instead dismiss it out of hand. Not good. As I said I am currently reading the history of the 1st Division of the Finnish Army. In the back there is a list of the divisions KIA, DOW and MIA listed by parent unit, date of death (actual or court order), giving rank, name and place of birth from 1941 to 1945. The only place I have seen a similar list in an Anglo-American history is a book on the US airforces during the Vietnam war where they listed all the US MIA. I have studied some history, including methodology and source critique. My disdain as you call it is based on scholarly criteria, not on the origin. Having been acclimatized to the level of accuracy as presented by the books mentioned above I find it really difficult to accept statements inferring (for example) Allied losses are indetermineable for such and such period of time or for this particular operation. This seems to have been because all the histories use the same sources and uphold the party line as established during and right after the war. The technical data is on the money, no question about it. Edited: But if in a popular history book like the Steel Inferno the author states in p.215 (paperback edition) on the heavy bomber attacks during Goowood "The results of these attacs have described many times before and there is no need to repeat them in detail" and in p. 230 "The strategic results, failures, successes and implications of this operation have been discussed many times. This author will confine himself to four basic statements." Remarks like this make the hair in the back of my neck curl on end. Not because the author is Anglo-American, but because these sentences assume certain things as givens from the reader. They also imply that there are still aspects that are too delicate to be handled impartially. These two sentences quite ruined the book for me despite its excellent attention to detail elsewhere. Uhmmm... where did you dig this crap out from? The SMG was not a flawed concept, but it had its limitations like everything else. And the fact that no nation uses SMGs for its frontline main smallarm, in my mind, underscores this to the extreme. If SMGs were the best weapon in the world to use, forces would be armed with Uzis and MP5s. They are not, and there are reasons for that. However, they are also not without their benefits, which is why small "elite" units still use SMGs as their primary weapon (at least for some situations, like urban warfare). Concur. However, how many of the assault rifles in service today do NOT have a possibility to select fullauto ? You decided to limit the ammo for the SMG but you apparently did not increase the FP rating as a compensation. Why ? HAHA!!! This is so ludicrous it is making me really blurt out laughing here Tero, please do a Search on this Forum on SMGs and see how much abuse we have taken (not just criticism, but outright abuse) for the way we have simulated SMGs in favor of the Germans and to the detriment of the Allies. Also check to see how many people feel that CMBO unrealistically rewards rushing tactics and unrealistically penalizes walking fire. So why do the running units not fire at all ? [ February 03, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Big Time Software: However, below a certain temp it doesn't really matter provided it has been cold for a long time prior. It takes a while for the ground to freeze down to the "frost layer". Alternating temperatures are a bitch. First you get cold, then thaw and then cold again. During the thaw you get both mud and ice under the mud. You will be basically slipping and sliding in the mud. And if you get your vehicle stuck during the thaw and it gets cold overnight before you managed to pull your vehicle out it will be pick ax time.