Tero

Some sort of smileys counter would be nice toutch. After composing a very witty and long reply it sucks having to revert to the original post when the server says there are too many smileys in the post.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: But not in the space of 30 minutes... I'll let you try driving your car into a VERY wet, VERY poorly constructed dirt road after a few tanks have travelled on it not 3 minutes ago. Just to see how deep you can bury your axels in the 30 minutes time period.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Interesting point about snow melting faster in the sun than in the trees...Something to consider for CM II? Or needless chrome? In the open snow turns to water, water turns the ground into mud.... rasputitsa it is called (IIRC ). The ground is generally harder where there is trees. They did this outside Leningrad too (Lake Ladoga). Will we see thick ice in CMBB? Actually ice breaking under arty fire etc. But this was ruled out ages ago. Command detonated ice mines would be nice. Will CMBB have "cleared" roads in winter - or can uncleared roads simply be represented by open ground tiles and all roads are considered "cleared"? No horsies, no sleds. And who will be clearing the roads in no-mans land ? In the steppes the clearing of the roads in the FEBA has to be done at night. And most often manually. Hiwis ? And/or built in/mandatory fatigue setting for those nationalities with no provision for horse drawn snowplows ? Separate ice roads (trampeled paths outside the road network) for the nations accustomed to the climate ? More to follow.... Yes, please. [ February 02, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. Use of captured equipment in CMBB will reflect historic levels by country. I'll have take your word for it. 2. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult than domestic equipment. Unless domestic equipment is close to or exactly 100% compatible with the captured equipment. For example the Maxim, the DT LMG, the LS LMG, the Mosin Nagant rifle and the Finnish copy of it all used the same caliber ammo. Also, the T-26 was a carbon copy of the Vickers 6ton, which was already in the Finnish inventory in 1939. 3. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult over time. See above. 4. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult in relation to the complexity and reliability of the equipment in question. Concur. 5. Use of captured vehicles was inherently more difficult than other equipment, such as guns and small arms. Concur. 6. Use of captured equipment, particularly vehicles, was made easier to the degree that domestic industry catered to spare parts or substitute systems. That is inversly proportionate to the number of different models being used. 7. Use of captured equipment was made easier when the scale was smaller, more difficult when the scale was larger. Also strongly influenced by the available numbers of captured stocks. Concur. 8. Need for strongly influenced effort in terms of aquiring, fielding, and maintaining captured equipment. "Where there is a will, there is a way" as the saying goes. Concur. 9. The fluidity of the front, the distance from home depots, and general state of logistics made continued use of captured equipment inherently more difficult. Why HOME depots only ? If you are using a piece of equipment made by nation A in a far away front against nation B that is true. But if you are using a piece of equipment made by nation B against itself why cycle all of them, including fully operational or those needing minor repair only to far off bases ? That is stupid. 10. Use of captured equipment during peacetime can not be compared to use during war. Concur. With a caveat. Depends what your intentions are: trying to maintain a fig leaf to pose as a credible fighting capability or use them for training. So what do you think about this? Any disagreement of any significance worth noting? In the points noted. Note that I did not mention anything about nationalities. I am NOT hung up on nationalism or sterotyping. I couldn't care less what country was or was not perceived as being good or not good at something. The only thing I care about are facts and reality. If the Finns had better success at keeping larger quantities of captured material on hand than other countries, then there is a reason for that. It isn't because they are better and the others worse. I fully agree. But when you guys are modelling the use of captured equipment you should also take into account the finer nuances, like the fact the Finnish army rejected German small arms in large scale use. This was mainly because of the incompatible ammo caliber (and in the case of the MG34/42 their mechanical reliability compared to the DT). Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions I get the distinct feeling (which you have directly reinforced) that you are biased either for Finland or against anything Western. I try to be unbiased against any side. Just because I tend to use Finnish experiences as my yard stick should not make my points any less valid than the rest of the POV's. And admitedly I do not show proper respect to the "correct" history writing of the mainstream Anglo-American tradition. If you deem that as being anti-Western then it is your problem. In such cases as ROF and the use of SMG's the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that million flies.... er Russians could not have been all wrong when they managed what theyd did fielding SMG's as they managed to force the Germans to follow suit. Just because the Western Allies totally midjudged the use of SMG does not meant the SMG was fundamentaly flawed as a concept. This is why I think the US squad with its 10 M1's should not be all powerful. And CMBO does favour the US squad and its forte as is glaringly obvious when no firing is allowed on the run which in turn favours the walking fire tactics as opposed to the rush tactics. And therefore all of these discussions disolve into some sort of perception battle. It is as tiring as it is pointless. I do not think it is a battle. More like a skirmish.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. Use of captured equipment in CMBB will reflect historic levels by country. I'll have take your word for it. 2. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult than domestic equipment. Unless domestic equipment is close to or exactly 100% compatible with the captured equipment. For example the Maxim, the DT LMG, the LS LMG, the Mosin Nagant rifle and the Finnish copy of it all used the same caliber ammo. Also, the T-26 was a carbon copy of the Vickers 6ton, which was already in the Finnish inventory in 1939. 3. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult over time. See above. 4. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult in relation to the complexity and reliability of the equipment in question. Concur. 5. Use of captured vehicles was inherently more difficult than other equipment, such as guns and small arms. Concur. 6. Use of captured equipment, particularly vehicles, was made easier to the degree that domestic industry catered to spare parts or substitute systems. That is inversly proportionate to the number of different models being used. 7. Use of captured equipment was made easier when the scale was smaller, more difficult when the scale was larger. Also strongly influenced by the available numbers of captured stocks. Concur. 8. Need for strongly influenced effort in terms of aquiring, fielding, and maintaining captured equipment. "Where there is a will, there is a way" as the saying goes. Concur. 9. The fluidity of the front, the distance from home depots, and general state of logistics made continued use of captured equipment inherently more difficult. Why HOME depots only ? If you are using a piece of equipment made by nation A in a far away front against nation B that is true. But if you are using a piece of equipment made by nation B against itself why cycle all of them, including fully operational or those needing minor repair only to far off bases ? That is stupid. 10. Use of captured equipment during peacetime can not be compared to use during war. Concur. With a caveat. Depends what your intentions are: trying to maintain a fig leaf to pose as a credible fighting capability or use them for training. So what do you think about this? Any disagreement of any significance worth noting? In the points noted. Note that I did not mention anything about nationalities. I am NOT hung up on nationalism or sterotyping. I couldn't care less what country was or was not perceived as being good or not good at something. The only thing I care about are facts and reality. If the Finns had better success at keeping larger quantities of captured material on hand than other countries, then there is a reason for that. It isn't because they are better and the others worse. I fully agree. But when you guys are modelling the use of captured equipment you should also take into account the finer nuances, like the fact the Finnish army rejected German small arms in large scale use. This was mainly because of the incompatible ammo caliber (and in the case of the MG34/42 their mechanical reliability compared to the DT). Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions I get the distinct feeling (which you have directly reinforced) that you are biased either for Finland or against anything Western. I try to be unbiased against any side. Just because I tend to use Finnish experiences as my yard stick should not make my points any less valid than the rest of the POV's. And admitedly I do not show proper respect to the "correct" history writing of the mainstream Anglo-American tradition. If you deem that as being anti-Western then it is your problem. In such cases as ROF and the use of SMG's the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that million flies.... er Russians could not have been all wrong when they managed what theyd did fielding SMG's as they managed to force the Germans to follow suit. Just because the Western Allies totally midjudged the use of SMG does not meant the SMG was fundamentaly flawed as a concept. This is why I think the US squad with its 10 M1's should not be all powerful. And CMBO does favour the US squad and its forte as is glaringly obvious when no firing is allowed on the run which in turn favours the walking fire tactics as opposed to the rush tactics. And therefore all of these discussions disolve into some sort of perception battle. It is as tiring as it is pointless. I do not think it is a battle. More like a skirmish.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them... How are you going to model the relative differences in doctrine between the Germans and the Soviets when the Red Army starts getting it right (around 1943) ? Will there be any allowances/penalties given for mobile defensive tactics and high command induced static defensive lines and "must hold" objectives ? And that is totally realistic when one looks in the history books. A stationary T-34 platoon is going to be a bitch and a half for the Germans to take care of, but if they are on the attack they will likely get themselves into trouble since the Germans can (in theory) out maneuver them. Will the generic map sizes be generated differently to give more space to manouver ? (particularly German and Finnish) I hope you get the differences in the artillery doctine between these two right.

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs. I hope you realize the fact that there is a fundamental difference between countries like USA and Finland. USA produced its own vehicles, by the thousand. USA could standardize all necessary parts and subassemblies, it could build up stocks of spare parts etc. Finland on the other had could not afford such affluence. The only thing going for our army in this respect was the fact we were using the same weapons and ammunition our most likely enemy was using. (This was BTW continued when the RK-62 was designed after the AK-47, not the FN-FAL or M14/16.) That enabled our troops to replace broken, malfunctioning or downright inferior weapons with captured ones without any difficulties arising from incompatible ammunition or spare parts. After Winter War the number of captured rifles that reached the depots was nearly 40 000. And that figure is considered to be too low as many were taken up by troops on the spot. Automatics were taken up on the spot as well. It is quite curious and unique that while our army lost the Winter War it had gained enough captured materiel to equip its infantry with a sufficient number of AT guns, automatics and other small arms in good condition and its armoured force with an adequate number of decent AFV's and its artillery with sufficient numbers of field guns. And all the necessary ammo to boot. When war broke out again in 1941 our army was in a better shape than it had been in 1939. And that was more due to the captured materiel than it was due to help received during and after the Winter War or due to purchases from Germany. After the war things reverted to the pre-war status, ie. low defence budgets. The airforce and the armoured force were hit the hardest by this because their equipment was the most vulnerable to wear and tear. My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank. True. But there is a correlation between the numbers of them. If you have captured a single specimen of each of them ALL will break down eventualy at the end of the maintenance cycle and for the lack of spares ALL have to be discarded. The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment. If you want to compare to the Germans I think a more suitable parallel is the Afrika Korps inventory and use of captured vehicles. The situation of the Afrika Korps was not unlike the Finnish situation, the only real difference was the fact they had some decent domestic equipment to start out with. They had a fairly uniform base of vehicles initially. Later on they managed to maintain and use any and all models of captured AFV's, HT's and soft skinned vehicles they could lay their hands on and get fixed. In the case of the EF and use of captured enemy armour: how many armoured unit (using the light armour) had the FAMO or SdKfz-7 heavy tractors that were required to salavage such heavy pieces of equipment ? When they did have them how often could they be spared to tow enemy armour when they had their own heavy stuff break down so often ? OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service. Get off your high horse. Just because the US Army had restrictive rules about captured stuff you should remember those rules did not apply to everyone. You are also forgetting we did capture some T-28's during Winter War and they were used later on. The only reason the Soviets were able to recover the SMK that got stopped behind the Finnish lines During Winter War was because our army did not have any means in place to tow the sucker away. Later the KV's and other mediums/heavies could be towed away. And during the summer of 1944, during the retreat, our army managed to capture and use further 2 T-34/76's and 9 T-34/85's along with two ISU-152's (one transported to the rear, one lost four days later to the enemy). If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this. It was not easy. But it was done. If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant. Please name one other country that did have close to 95% of its armoured force made out of captured vehicles and relied almost 100% on captured materiel for spare parts and ammunition (in 1941). Please name one other country that had almost 100% compatibility (9mm Suomi SMG and 20mm AT rifle being the most notable exceptions) with the enemy ordnance when it came to small arms and its ammunition in front line units. There is nothing über about this, the fact is when you are trying to make sweeping statements about the use of captured equipment and how it was basically a burden. Well, excuse me if I have the audacity to point out that there is an exception to the rule. Yes, it was not easy to maintain the captured armour. But no, it was not a burden to be able to use captured small arms and ammo. During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had. You yourself maintain how hard it is to keep them running even under the easiest of conditions during peace time. Thus your argumentation is flawed in this case. If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison. And I propose you are ruling it out because it kinda makes sense and that throws a monkey wrench in your reasoning. And from photographic evidence alone I would hazard an opinion that the Germans did use captured equipment quite extensively, especially small arms. They also had quite a few heavy items named ® denoting captured Russischen origin. Just like they had a lot of items with all kinds of indications of foreign origin, not just Russian. The main issue is ammo supplies and spare parts. The others had to rely on captured stocks while we Finns could use either our own stock or captured stock, whatever was most convenient under the circumstances. That was a bonus we got for having been under the rule of the Tsars and having Russian troops stationed here. Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised For a moment there I though we almost agreed at least on some things there. Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12. By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units. Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have. Which is, apart from more FP, what ? Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces. I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect. True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct. If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ? I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned. The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt not too long ago.

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs. I hope you realize the fact that there is a fundamental difference between countries like USA and Finland. USA produced its own vehicles, by the thousand. USA could standardize all necessary parts and subassemblies, it could build up stocks of spare parts etc. Finland on the other had could not afford such affluence. The only thing going for our army in this respect was the fact we were using the same weapons and ammunition our most likely enemy was using. (This was BTW continued when the RK-62 was designed after the AK-47, not the FN-FAL or M14/16.) That enabled our troops to replace broken, malfunctioning or downright inferior weapons with captured ones without any difficulties arising from incompatible ammunition or spare parts. After Winter War the number of captured rifles that reached the depots was nearly 40 000. And that figure is considered to be too low as many were taken up by troops on the spot. Automatics were taken up on the spot as well. It is quite curious and unique that while our army lost the Winter War it had gained enough captured materiel to equip its infantry with a sufficient number of AT guns, automatics and other small arms in good condition and its armoured force with an adequate number of decent AFV's and its artillery with sufficient numbers of field guns. And all the necessary ammo to boot. When war broke out again in 1941 our army was in a better shape than it had been in 1939. And that was more due to the captured materiel than it was due to help received during and after the Winter War or due to purchases from Germany. After the war things reverted to the pre-war status, ie. low defence budgets. The airforce and the armoured force were hit the hardest by this because their equipment was the most vulnerable to wear and tear. My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank. True. But there is a correlation between the numbers of them. If you have captured a single specimen of each of them ALL will break down eventualy at the end of the maintenance cycle and for the lack of spares ALL have to be discarded. The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment. If you want to compare to the Germans I think a more suitable parallel is the Afrika Korps inventory and use of captured vehicles. The situation of the Afrika Korps was not unlike the Finnish situation, the only real difference was the fact they had some decent domestic equipment to start out with. They had a fairly uniform base of vehicles initially. Later on they managed to maintain and use any and all models of captured AFV's, HT's and soft skinned vehicles they could lay their hands on and get fixed. In the case of the EF and use of captured enemy armour: how many armoured unit (using the light armour) had the FAMO or SdKfz-7 heavy tractors that were required to salavage such heavy pieces of equipment ? When they did have them how often could they be spared to tow enemy armour when they had their own heavy stuff break down so often ? OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service. Get off your high horse. Just because the US Army had restrictive rules about captured stuff you should remember those rules did not apply to everyone. You are also forgetting we did capture some T-28's during Winter War and they were used later on. The only reason the Soviets were able to recover the SMK that got stopped behind the Finnish lines During Winter War was because our army did not have any means in place to tow the sucker away. Later the KV's and other mediums/heavies could be towed away. And during the summer of 1944, during the retreat, our army managed to capture and use further 2 T-34/76's and 9 T-34/85's along with two ISU-152's (one transported to the rear, one lost four days later to the enemy). If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this. It was not easy. But it was done. If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant. Please name one other country that did have close to 95% of its armoured force made out of captured vehicles and relied almost 100% on captured materiel for spare parts and ammunition (in 1941). Please name one other country that had almost 100% compatibility (9mm Suomi SMG and 20mm AT rifle being the most notable exceptions) with the enemy ordnance when it came to small arms and its ammunition in front line units. There is nothing über about this, the fact is when you are trying to make sweeping statements about the use of captured equipment and how it was basically a burden. Well, excuse me if I have the audacity to point out that there is an exception to the rule. Yes, it was not easy to maintain the captured armour. But no, it was not a burden to be able to use captured small arms and ammo. During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had. You yourself maintain how hard it is to keep them running even under the easiest of conditions during peace time. Thus your argumentation is flawed in this case. If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison. And I propose you are ruling it out because it kinda makes sense and that throws a monkey wrench in your reasoning. And from photographic evidence alone I would hazard an opinion that the Germans did use captured equipment quite extensively, especially small arms. They also had quite a few heavy items named ® denoting captured Russischen origin. Just like they had a lot of items with all kinds of indications of foreign origin, not just Russian. The main issue is ammo supplies and spare parts. The others had to rely on captured stocks while we Finns could use either our own stock or captured stock, whatever was most convenient under the circumstances. That was a bonus we got for having been under the rule of the Tsars and having Russian troops stationed here. Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised For a moment there I though we almost agreed at least on some things there. Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12. By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units. Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have. Which is, apart from more FP, what ? Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces. I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect. True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct. If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ? I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned. The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt not too long ago.

Originally posted by patolino: Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)? Beats me. Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war? Where would they have been bought ? We were paying war reparations until 1952, remember ? NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing Concur. I was actually surprised to see the 45mm AT and the 88 AA as training guns when I served in 1985-86.

Originally posted by patolino: Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)? Beats me. Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war? Where would they have been bought ? We were paying war reparations until 1952, remember ? NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing Concur. I was actually surprised to see the 45mm AT and the 88 AA as training guns when I served in 1985-86.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ParaBellum: No need to get worried here. In CM you will NEVER find an FO directing 88mm fire at you...<hr></blockquote> Technically speaking a 25prd is 88mm. Or was it 85mm.... [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

NOTE: smileys omitted because the server said so. Theory and practice are very different Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war. My point is that planning for war and dealing with the reality of war are two different things. True. A small country like Finland with meager resources and little hope for outside help plans a little differently than a superpower. From what I have read I have concluded the Finnish army was pretty much the only army that finished the war with pretty much the same tactics and doctrine as it had started it out with. IMO one of the contributing factors was the ability to utilize captured arms and ammo effectively. More relevant example is that prior to launching the offensive towards Moscow in the Fall of 1941, most German Panzer Divisions were only at 25% established strength. The vast majority of the 75% not available were sitting in repair shops. Too many broke down too fast too far away from major supply depots which in turn were not adequately stocked with spares. I rather like the annexation of Tsheckoslovakia and the attrition suffered in what was basically a simple, if a bit long, road march as an example. SMILEY OMITTED The point again is that keeping captured material functioning was very difficult, even for the situation described in Finland and Romania. There is a reason why the smaller vehicles were maintained in higher readiness and larger numbers than larger AFVs. I think size does not matter ( ), only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair. Think of how many T-34s the Finns encountered compared to how many they fielded. There is a reason for this That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus. SMILEY OMITTED A few were bought off the Germans but the T-34/85's that served were captured during the summer of 1944. How do you think they got their ammo replenished along with the necessary spare parts ? KO'd ISU-152's were scavenged for suitable parts for the KV's etc. SMILEY OMITTED Very interesting information! Also proves my point well Perhaps. SMILEY OMITTED But you must also remember they were bought off the Germans, not captured. The deal included the necessary tools and some spares. Captured equipment were used as long as these Stugs and they managed to find enough bits and pieces to make 10 T-26 runners for the movie Winter War in 1989 while only recently a few of the Stugs have been brought to running condition here in Finland. The ones that have been sold abroad have been runners but in poor condition. No. This one is owned by a man in California who has a large private museum with about 100 AFVs from WWII and after. However, I am pretty sure he bought it from someone in the UK in unrestored condition and not directly form the Finnish government. But I could be wrong about that. I know one fully restored vehicle was sold from the UK to the US not long ago. I generally agree, but I think you are missing one crucial point. Some Soviet AFVs were never pressed into service because they were too much of a problem to support. The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? The usual number given is two in service. They were captured in separate occasions. Regretably I have no serviceability records but since they did not see real action before the summer of 1944 I'd say they were serviceable the whole time. Others (at least one ) had been KO'd so I'd expect that/they were scavenged for spare parts. Certainly they had the chance to acquire more from the battlefield, but for various reasons were not able to use more than a couple through the course of the entire war. You are mistaken. There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). But in no case did the number of them rise above 10. The most numerous AFV's encountred in 1941 were BT's and T-26's and other assorted light AFV's, not the better KV's and T-34's. Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning! I bet the Romanians had payed an arm and a leg for the vehicles in any case. That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo. You could get anything you need from the enemy, fully set up and primed instead of being forced to wait for them to arrive from your rear AND having to work them up too. Tell me about it They have probably more artillery models available to them at any on time than probably the Germans or the Soviets. And yes, we are simulating a very large number of them. That is only the field arty mind you. I trust you have also taken into account the coastal artillery that was used to support the infantry in coastal areas around the lake Ladoga and the Isthmus. Gotta luve those 6", 8", 12" and 14" guns. In the Editor all of these things can be customized. This will allow you to have worn out frontline troops and fresh reserves. But for Quick Battles this is far too detailed and can not be done easily, which defeats the purpose of Quick Battles I personally would hate to set up all the battles involving Finns in the Editor. It was introduced to a) prevent the Gamey use of Split Squads (i.e. doubling your force, which the game and graphics system was NOT designed to handle) An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it. to realistically penalize the player for spreading forces too thinly. If it wasn't for the absolute spotting issue I'd say the reduced long range FP would be a sufficiently severe penalty. There is a reason why the Squad size has not changed much in the last 60 years or so. A particular number (8-10 men) was found to be effective in terms of combat and staying power. I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit. Starting off with only 4-5 men eliminates staying power and greatly reduces combat power derived from combined efforts of a larger group. Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics. In defence a full squad does have its inherent advantages but they present a larger target, which will be a problem when they are manning a dug out instead of the usual foxhole. Automatic weapons go a long way in equalizing the FP between smaller groups and larger groups. (But lets steer away from the SMG usage issue ) The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?

NOTE: smileys omitted because the server said so. Theory and practice are very different Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war. My point is that planning for war and dealing with the reality of war are two different things. True. A small country like Finland with meager resources and little hope for outside help plans a little differently than a superpower. From what I have read I have concluded the Finnish army was pretty much the only army that finished the war with pretty much the same tactics and doctrine as it had started it out with. IMO one of the contributing factors was the ability to utilize captured arms and ammo effectively. More relevant example is that prior to launching the offensive towards Moscow in the Fall of 1941, most German Panzer Divisions were only at 25% established strength. The vast majority of the 75% not available were sitting in repair shops. Too many broke down too fast too far away from major supply depots which in turn were not adequately stocked with spares. I rather like the annexation of Tsheckoslovakia and the attrition suffered in what was basically a simple, if a bit long, road march as an example. SMILEY OMITTED The point again is that keeping captured material functioning was very difficult, even for the situation described in Finland and Romania. There is a reason why the smaller vehicles were maintained in higher readiness and larger numbers than larger AFVs. I think size does not matter ( ), only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair. Think of how many T-34s the Finns encountered compared to how many they fielded. There is a reason for this That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus. SMILEY OMITTED A few were bought off the Germans but the T-34/85's that served were captured during the summer of 1944. How do you think they got their ammo replenished along with the necessary spare parts ? KO'd ISU-152's were scavenged for suitable parts for the KV's etc. SMILEY OMITTED Very interesting information! Also proves my point well Perhaps. SMILEY OMITTED But you must also remember they were bought off the Germans, not captured. The deal included the necessary tools and some spares. Captured equipment were used as long as these Stugs and they managed to find enough bits and pieces to make 10 T-26 runners for the movie Winter War in 1989 while only recently a few of the Stugs have been brought to running condition here in Finland. The ones that have been sold abroad have been runners but in poor condition. No. This one is owned by a man in California who has a large private museum with about 100 AFVs from WWII and after. However, I am pretty sure he bought it from someone in the UK in unrestored condition and not directly form the Finnish government. But I could be wrong about that. I know one fully restored vehicle was sold from the UK to the US not long ago. I generally agree, but I think you are missing one crucial point. Some Soviet AFVs were never pressed into service because they were too much of a problem to support. The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? The usual number given is two in service. They were captured in separate occasions. Regretably I have no serviceability records but since they did not see real action before the summer of 1944 I'd say they were serviceable the whole time. Others (at least one ) had been KO'd so I'd expect that/they were scavenged for spare parts. Certainly they had the chance to acquire more from the battlefield, but for various reasons were not able to use more than a couple through the course of the entire war. You are mistaken. There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). But in no case did the number of them rise above 10. The most numerous AFV's encountred in 1941 were BT's and T-26's and other assorted light AFV's, not the better KV's and T-34's. Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning! I bet the Romanians had payed an arm and a leg for the vehicles in any case. That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo. You could get anything you need from the enemy, fully set up and primed instead of being forced to wait for them to arrive from your rear AND having to work them up too. Tell me about it They have probably more artillery models available to them at any on time than probably the Germans or the Soviets. And yes, we are simulating a very large number of them. That is only the field arty mind you. I trust you have also taken into account the coastal artillery that was used to support the infantry in coastal areas around the lake Ladoga and the Isthmus. Gotta luve those 6", 8", 12" and 14" guns. In the Editor all of these things can be customized. This will allow you to have worn out frontline troops and fresh reserves. But for Quick Battles this is far too detailed and can not be done easily, which defeats the purpose of Quick Battles I personally would hate to set up all the battles involving Finns in the Editor. It was introduced to a) prevent the Gamey use of Split Squads (i.e. doubling your force, which the game and graphics system was NOT designed to handle) An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it. to realistically penalize the player for spreading forces too thinly. If it wasn't for the absolute spotting issue I'd say the reduced long range FP would be a sufficiently severe penalty. There is a reason why the Squad size has not changed much in the last 60 years or so. A particular number (8-10 men) was found to be effective in terms of combat and staying power. I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit. Starting off with only 4-5 men eliminates staying power and greatly reduces combat power derived from combined efforts of a larger group. Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics. In defence a full squad does have its inherent advantages but they present a larger target, which will be a problem when they are manning a dug out instead of the usual foxhole. Automatic weapons go a long way in equalizing the FP between smaller groups and larger groups. (But lets steer away from the SMG usage issue ) The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?

Originally posted by Munter: If there's any doubt of winning, why should one attack in the first place? Why not make the "best" of it in case one decides to invade? Depends what was deemed to be the "best" under the circumstances: the Soviets were eager for a rematch after the humiliation, the Germans thought they could conquer the world and had ideas about the Soviet military that ran contrary to the Finnish first hand experiences. Why not do a concentrated but half hearted push to get what you want and then claim "due to circumstances beyond our control", "insufficient resources" and "we'll see when you get there" when the Germans start whining about lack of zeal ? At that time , summer of '41, the Finnish politicians KNEW that Germany would win and sent the troops over the border. Yet, when the Germans failed to take Moscow in 1941 they KNEW Germany would lose the war. A mere coincidence the Finnish troops were ordered to stand down and not to cross the river Svir ? I think not. Already the moral justification as fed to the troops was beginning to wear thin. Just about nobody liked either the German politics or the discipline in Wehrmacht. As a matter of fact, most of the people in the higher officies were either pro-British or pro-Swedish, but you certainly knew this already, didn't you? Of course. That is why I do not think it was Mannerheim alone who was dragging his feet. Or was alone responsible for the lack of "moral fiber" in the matter of the siege of Leningrad and half hearted execution of combat operations. Winter War had shown how much we could rely on out-of-town muscle when the feces hits the ventilation. Also, to retain any shread of credibility and good will that resulted from that experience the pre-war axiom of "no threat to Leningrad" had to stand come hell or high water. It would have incredibly stupid to take part in the siege after denying all Soviet allegations and misgivings to the contrary. As it now seems, the Finnish strategy was to get back the areas lost in the Winter War, and then some in the Eastern Karelia. When Germany "inevitably" would win, Finland would secure the booty cheaply without losing their own soldiers. Altruism is not in the core when you examine war as a phenomemnon. Nor is unselfish actions of nations. A stowaway nation, of a sort. Lets not forget the kind of "help" the Germans gave us during Winter War when they blocked the arms shipments. The help from the Finnish side would yet have been decisive in the siege of Leningrad. Most certainly. Mannerheim didn't care but took his chances. And lost. Big time. Only if his ultimate intention was to overthrow the Soviet regime ruling former Imperial Russia. If his ultimate intention was to safeguard the Finnish nation in all eventualities I'd say he played his hand right. It was first afterwards some hang-arounds founded the myth of a "great and long-sighted political realist who was wise enough not to bother the Russians any more than necessary and led Finland to the glorious and wonderful era of everlasting friendship and mutual trust between these two peace-loving nations". He was a military realist, not a political realist. A load of c***, he just s****ed it up and he knew it. Finland lost that war and nobody is stupid enough to want a rematch, period. Yes. But the loss was at a cost to the attacker. Not even the Soviets wanted a rematch, like they had yearned to do after Winter War. Unbreakable loyalty. That's always been a virtue for an officer. Nobody put a bullet in Hitler either despite of the several chances. How many attempts were made on Mannerheims life during the war ? For instance, Stauffenberg is still appreciated by the politicians and despised by the officers. He used a time-bomb and not a firearm and tried to get away with it instead of taking full personal responsibility. Oh well, he got it anyway in the end. Funny you despise him but not Rommel. As for the gene pool from my fathers side, there was a Swedish grunt from the army of Carl XII who stayed in Finland in the beginning of 18th century after THAT war. My mother's heritage comes mostly from the Jewish immigrants in Karelia during the Russian epoch. Mine is a mixture of slow Häme from my fathers side and Uusimaa from my mother side (researched and verified, not a trace of Savo in my blood from my mothers side at least. Only a few traces towards Turku ). So, what does that make me? An Unter-Finn? Just plain Finn. Which by default makes you an über-Finn. Let's keep in touch! Peace and respect, man ! [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Big Time Software: My point is that you can not compare keeping vehicles running during peacetime with time of war. From subsequent things you said I think you understand this point. It is a matter of scale. The aim of an army relying on captured/out-of-production equipment is to keep them running in peace time and to keep them in sufficiently good condition to make them last in combat conditions (indeed keep them in such a condition they can make it to the battle field under their own power at least). Also, that army has to be able to maintain/sustain them in combat conditions. Which IMO is not that dissimilar to keeping them in running condition during the time of peace. All the necessary pieces and incredients have to be present in both cases. That is, if they are not a "use-and-lose" bonus asset. Oh, another thing... a vehicle during wartime is most likely going to be used hard, constantly. I wonder how many times the Finns took their StuGs out after the war and under what conditions? IIRC they were used rather evenly and not revved up without good cause. And they did get kept in storage. Of interest is the fact the vehicle given the registration number (531 ?) - 13 was cannibalized for spare parts upon arrival already in 1943. Others, which were not recovered but combat write offs, seem to have been spared from that fate. When the decision was made to replace them in the mid-60's they were used extensively until the automotive parts could not take it anymore and they were placed in airfields as static gun emplacements until the late -80's. As a side note... one of Finland's StuGs is now in California fully restored. I think it cost over $300,000 for the purchase, transportation, and restoration. Is it the one that Brit fellow purchased and restored ? Both, but during the War of Continuation, not the period inbetween it and the Winter War. I take it you have the book on Finnish armour. If you flip back to the back where there is a list on the models and numbers you will find out why I asked the question. The number of models present is quite large when speaking about the pre-1941 models of Soviet AFV's. The absolute numbers of vehicles are small compared to the thousands of AFV's in the major armies. But if you take into account the fact most models were of captured enemy stock the absolute number becomes comparable to the major armies and their systematic use of captured materiel (Germany not included of course ). The difference is the other armies had domestic models or sufficient(ish) numbers of purchased models to supplement the captured vehicles while Finland could/had to initially rely on the "supply" of captured vehicles and spares to solve any logistical problems. The only models that could not be maintained in this manner were the Landsverk Anti AAA vehicles and the Stugs. Even during the retreat of the summer of 1944 Finnish salvage teams gathered suitable spare parts from KO'd enemy vehicles during the lulls in the fighting. The Romanians had similar problems, using domestic, German, Czech, Italian, and Soviet equipment in large quantities throughout the war. When talking about small arms of the Finnish army were of the same caliber, in fact the same models the Red Army used (or domestic modifications of them with interchangeable parts with the original models). Curiously enough Winter War created also a problem. We had received sizable quantities of small arms and ammo as gifts that were not compatible. These were largely relegated to the rear echelon and home front troops (AAA etc). Models like the Italian Manlichter-Carcano PoS were among them (IIRC the one LHO supposedly used was ex Finnish stock). The front line infantry used equipment compatible with the enemy ordnance. German small arms were rejected because of they were of different caliber. Finnish field artillery had over 60 models and almost as many calibers. German artillery pieces had to be bought but they were in the minority. Again it was more cost effective to use captured pieces and ammo because of the combatibility issues. In the case of the FAF all the possible variations and combinations in ordnance and models compounded the logistical problems into a quartermasters wet dream. American, French, Dutch, Italian, British, Soviet and German models were flown. At least. The armoured force had Swedish, British, Soviet and German models. The T-26 being a carbon copy of the Vickers 6 tn tank there was no problems with part interchangeability. There is a different Rarity system for each individual nation for starters. If you select Finnish Combained Arms you will get to choose from AFVs based on how common they were relative to each other, not how likely a Finnish force would have them at their disposal. Any time period related modifiers ? In 1941 it is more likely to encounter a T-26 than a KV under the Finnish flag while in 1944 the T-26 was still the most numerous model but had been relegated to support duties and the KV had a more prominent part in the armour vs armour fighting. If you let CM decide which force you would get, then Formation Rarity kicks in. Not only will it select the type of force based on Rarity numbers (i.e. just about rulling out Cavalry and Armor), but it will also price Infantry formations according to how common they were. So, for example, a regular Infantry Battalion (and its attachments) will be the most common with Jääkäri and Sissi formations being proportionally more expensive. What about OOB's ? The Cavalry brigades did not use horses so they were in fact regular infantry. A Brigade OOB's there is a Jääkäri company as an organic part of the OOB. In the armoured brigade/division all the infantry formations were Jääkäri formations That would mean that a Jääkäri company should cost a different amount of points for the regular infantry (unless it is an organic part of the formation) than it would cost to a formation which had them in their organic OOB. Right ? I'm scurrying for a war time OOB because I have a hunch there were Jääkäri formations at Regimental level in the regular infantry too. But I am not 100% sure about that. Also, during intense fighting it was common for the OOB to get mixed. It was common for companies that got mixed up to form impromptu gaggles that fought on instead of losing time reorganizing themselves into proper formations. In the CM timeframe that would mean pristine OOB's would be a rarity unless each and every CM engagement starts from the start of the battle and not from the middle of the battle. Which would render the fitness and other similar settings illogical if they are global settings. How often was a reinforcement unit already exhausted when it arrived at the scene, even if it was already present at the start of the CM battle and does not arrive as reinforcement during the battle ? Which brings me to the split squad morale hit: why was it induced in the first place in CMBO ? Any chance it will be done away with in CMBB ? [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Big Time Software: My point is that you can not compare keeping vehicles running during peacetime with time of war. From subsequent things you said I think you understand this point. It is a matter of scale. The aim of an army relying on captured/out-of-production equipment is to keep them running in peace time and to keep them in sufficiently good condition to make them last in combat conditions (indeed keep them in such a condition they can make it to the battle field under their own power at least). Also, that army has to be able to maintain/sustain them in combat conditions. Which IMO is not that dissimilar to keeping them in running condition during the time of peace. All the necessary pieces and incredients have to be present in both cases. That is, if they are not a "use-and-lose" bonus asset. Oh, another thing... a vehicle during wartime is most likely going to be used hard, constantly. I wonder how many times the Finns took their StuGs out after the war and under what conditions? IIRC they were used rather evenly and not revved up without good cause. And they did get kept in storage. Of interest is the fact the vehicle given the registration number (531 ?) - 13 was cannibalized for spare parts upon arrival already in 1943. Others, which were not recovered but combat write offs, seem to have been spared from that fate. When the decision was made to replace them in the mid-60's they were used extensively until the automotive parts could not take it anymore and they were placed in airfields as static gun emplacements until the late -80's. As a side note... one of Finland's StuGs is now in California fully restored. I think it cost over $300,000 for the purchase, transportation, and restoration. Is it the one that Brit fellow purchased and restored ? Both, but during the War of Continuation, not the period inbetween it and the Winter War. I take it you have the book on Finnish armour. If you flip back to the back where there is a list on the models and numbers you will find out why I asked the question. The number of models present is quite large when speaking about the pre-1941 models of Soviet AFV's. The absolute numbers of vehicles are small compared to the thousands of AFV's in the major armies. But if you take into account the fact most models were of captured enemy stock the absolute number becomes comparable to the major armies and their systematic use of captured materiel (Germany not included of course ). The difference is the other armies had domestic models or sufficient(ish) numbers of purchased models to supplement the captured vehicles while Finland could/had to initially rely on the "supply" of captured vehicles and spares to solve any logistical problems. The only models that could not be maintained in this manner were the Landsverk Anti AAA vehicles and the Stugs. Even during the retreat of the summer of 1944 Finnish salvage teams gathered suitable spare parts from KO'd enemy vehicles during the lulls in the fighting. The Romanians had similar problems, using domestic, German, Czech, Italian, and Soviet equipment in large quantities throughout the war. When talking about small arms of the Finnish army were of the same caliber, in fact the same models the Red Army used (or domestic modifications of them with interchangeable parts with the original models). Curiously enough Winter War created also a problem. We had received sizable quantities of small arms and ammo as gifts that were not compatible. These were largely relegated to the rear echelon and home front troops (AAA etc). Models like the Italian Manlichter-Carcano PoS were among them (IIRC the one LHO supposedly used was ex Finnish stock). The front line infantry used equipment compatible with the enemy ordnance. German small arms were rejected because of they were of different caliber. Finnish field artillery had over 60 models and almost as many calibers. German artillery pieces had to be bought but they were in the minority. Again it was more cost effective to use captured pieces and ammo because of the combatibility issues. In the case of the FAF all the possible variations and combinations in ordnance and models compounded the logistical problems into a quartermasters wet dream. American, French, Dutch, Italian, British, Soviet and German models were flown. At least. The armoured force had Swedish, British, Soviet and German models. The T-26 being a carbon copy of the Vickers 6 tn tank there was no problems with part interchangeability. There is a different Rarity system for each individual nation for starters. If you select Finnish Combained Arms you will get to choose from AFVs based on how common they were relative to each other, not how likely a Finnish force would have them at their disposal. Any time period related modifiers ? In 1941 it is more likely to encounter a T-26 than a KV under the Finnish flag while in 1944 the T-26 was still the most numerous model but had been relegated to support duties and the KV had a more prominent part in the armour vs armour fighting. If you let CM decide which force you would get, then Formation Rarity kicks in. Not only will it select the type of force based on Rarity numbers (i.e. just about rulling out Cavalry and Armor), but it will also price Infantry formations according to how common they were. So, for example, a regular Infantry Battalion (and its attachments) will be the most common with Jääkäri and Sissi formations being proportionally more expensive. What about OOB's ? The Cavalry brigades did not use horses so they were in fact regular infantry. A Brigade OOB's there is a Jääkäri company as an organic part of the OOB. In the armoured brigade/division all the infantry formations were Jääkäri formations That would mean that a Jääkäri company should cost a different amount of points for the regular infantry (unless it is an organic part of the formation) than it would cost to a formation which had them in their organic OOB. Right ? I'm scurrying for a war time OOB because I have a hunch there were Jääkäri formations at Regimental level in the regular infantry too. But I am not 100% sure about that. Also, during intense fighting it was common for the OOB to get mixed. It was common for companies that got mixed up to form impromptu gaggles that fought on instead of losing time reorganizing themselves into proper formations. In the CM timeframe that would mean pristine OOB's would be a rarity unless each and every CM engagement starts from the start of the battle and not from the middle of the battle. Which would render the fitness and other similar settings illogical if they are global settings. How often was a reinforcement unit already exhausted when it arrived at the scene, even if it was already present at the start of the CM battle and does not arrive as reinforcement during the battle ? Which brings me to the split squad morale hit: why was it induced in the first place in CMBO ? Any chance it will be done away with in CMBB ? [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Section III, my opponent playing the Para scen please check in. I have my better machine up and running and my son unintentionaly erased all my email data from the back up machine. I think I sent the last turn over to you but before I start screaming AWOL again I'd like to make sure.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Do not confuse frontline, highly intensive war situations hundreds of miles from home territory with peaceful, home depot situations. I try not to. But what is the difference between the two at the time of total war in a place with highly restricted access routes ? Other parts were aquired on the open market or through deals with the governments that produced them (if they are friendly, of course). The Finnish Stugs were kept running by buying PzKw-III's from IIRC Norway after the war. None of this can be compared to a German Divisional level support shop stuck next to some swamp in Central Russia with a backlog of German vehicles in need of repair and often lacking the resources or time to do so. The German situation was similar. And different. We had only one armoured formation. I mean, why did the Finns have so few Soviet AFVs in service at one time? They certainly did knock out/capture far more than the numbers fielded. Do you mean types or numbers ? For all intents and purposes prior to 1940 there was no armour in the Finnish army. In 1941 some 100 T-26's were fielded along with BT-7's and a few T-28's. A rag tag assortment of AC's, amphib tankettes and arty tractors. Most were captured and/or rebuilt by joining different components from different damaged vehicles. BTW, this was the single biggest problem with the German lorries. They fielded anything that moved, which meant trucks of various types produced by probably a dozen different nations over a period of 10-15 years. This resulted in a low readiness level and decreasing mechanization as the war dragged on. And the Germans had spare parts being produced in many cases by the same factories which made them, yet there were still many logistical headaches that were never solved. If you take a look at the assortment of makes and models the Finnish Air Force kept up and flying throughout the war you will find the chaos they had to sort through is of similar magnitude, relatively speaking. We have different standards for Axis Allied nations. The same thing you describe with the Finns exists for Hungary and Romania too. How many people know that the Hungarians used a company's worth of Tiger 1 Es? Not too many I suspect. Incidentaly: how will the unit costs be valued for different armies (for example in the case of Stugs) ? There was only one armoured formation in the Finnish army so there was only one combined arms/armour formation. The rest were plain vanilla infantry. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Do not confuse frontline, highly intensive war situations hundreds of miles from home territory with peaceful, home depot situations. I try not to. But what is the difference between the two at the time of total war in a place with highly restricted access routes ? Other parts were aquired on the open market or through deals with the governments that produced them (if they are friendly, of course). The Finnish Stugs were kept running by buying PzKw-III's from IIRC Norway after the war. None of this can be compared to a German Divisional level support shop stuck next to some swamp in Central Russia with a backlog of German vehicles in need of repair and often lacking the resources or time to do so. The German situation was similar. And different. We had only one armoured formation. I mean, why did the Finns have so few Soviet AFVs in service at one time? They certainly did knock out/capture far more than the numbers fielded. Do you mean types or numbers ? For all intents and purposes prior to 1940 there was no armour in the Finnish army. In 1941 some 100 T-26's were fielded along with BT-7's and a few T-28's. A rag tag assortment of AC's, amphib tankettes and arty tractors. Most were captured and/or rebuilt by joining different components from different damaged vehicles. BTW, this was the single biggest problem with the German lorries. They fielded anything that moved, which meant trucks of various types produced by probably a dozen different nations over a period of 10-15 years. This resulted in a low readiness level and decreasing mechanization as the war dragged on. And the Germans had spare parts being produced in many cases by the same factories which made them, yet there were still many logistical headaches that were never solved. If you take a look at the assortment of makes and models the Finnish Air Force kept up and flying throughout the war you will find the chaos they had to sort through is of similar magnitude, relatively speaking. We have different standards for Axis Allied nations. The same thing you describe with the Finns exists for Hungary and Romania too. How many people know that the Hungarians used a company's worth of Tiger 1 Es? Not too many I suspect. Incidentaly: how will the unit costs be valued for different armies (for example in the case of Stugs) ? There was only one armoured formation in the Finnish army so there was only one combined arms/armour formation. The rest were plain vanilla infantry. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Munter: Exactly. The question is: what was the point in jumping into the war if one wasn't fully prepared to do every possible sacrifice to obliterate the threat represented by the Soviet Union? What if you fail in that endeavour and are subjected to the full wrath of the Russians with all their passions ? Yours is the kind of POV I fail to understand. There is no logic in it. It fails to take into consideration all the relevant prevailing factors of the period (including the political ones) and which affected the decision making at the time, starting with the fact the objective of the Winter War the restoration of the borders of the Imperial Russia and the fact that pretty much no-one has succeeded in conquering the territory that makes out Russia since Tsingis Chan. From a sheer military point of view Finland should have taken part in capturing Leningrad and cutting off the railway connections close to Arkangel thus sealing off Murmansk for good. Then at least one of the strategic goals for the first year of the war would have been secured. What were the proclaimed strategic goals set down by the Finnish government ? I do not recall the down fall of the Soviet regime was among them. Yes, the Soviets had violated the standing non-aggression pact but I have never ever seen any statement or political agenda that would have culminated in the down fall of the Soviet regime as a retaliatory measure. The following (German) attack through a secondary route could have been based on the good railway tracks leading straight to Moscow ---> one more strategic goal achieved. Which was the German goal, not the Finnish goal. But no. Mannerheim, having previously been a Russian officer for 40 years, kept back his troops. Our army was a defence force. Most of his officers were trained by and had served in the Imperial German army during WWI. Yet there was no plot or mutiny to depose him and jump into the Nazi band wagon for real. Why ? Germany would have lost anyway after the U.S. of A. entered the war, but the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe would never have taken place. I suppose Winston Churchill would have accepted the results when both the Communism and the Nazism were wiped out simultaniously. The real Russia would have risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union 50 years before than in reality. Well, we would still had been on the wrong side but the retaliation from the Western Allies could not have been worse than that later done by the Soviets. Hogwash ! Anyway, the results of the war, as they are, did wonders for the Finnish narrow gene pool (including mine) when the refugees from Karelia were re-settled. The way you spell Turku would suggest your narrow gene pool originated from the western shore of the Gulf of Bothnia. How do you spell Viipuri ? Vyborg ?

Originally posted by Big Time Software: The use of captured armored vehicles (especially tracked ones) was rare for all nations. The main reason is that captured AFVs were usually damaged in some way. Even minor damage was often very difficult to fix...... The problem was once a bunch of captured tanks were concentrated in one area they could be maintained at GREAT effort. This did happen from time to time, but generally only when domestic vehicles were not available. As soon as they were made available... the captured stuff was just run into the ground and abandoned when they broke down. How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ? All nations in CMBB will have access to some captured stuff based on evidence of "common" use. Meaning, more than 30 or so were used. But if you play with Rarity on... forget about ever seeing captured stuff in your Quick Battles So basically the Finns will get BT-7's (widrawn from service altogether by late 1943) because they were used in numbers but the few T-34's and the two KV's that played much more vital role in the war effort are out because of this "30-vehicle rule" ? And this means the Finns do not get most of the AC's either ? Historically the Finnish armoured division worked with T-26's and other assorted captured stuff, later supplemented/replaced by the Stugs because they were the most numerous vehicles present in the OB at any given time. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Big Time Software: The use of captured armored vehicles (especially tracked ones) was rare for all nations. The main reason is that captured AFVs were usually damaged in some way. Even minor damage was often very difficult to fix...... The problem was once a bunch of captured tanks were concentrated in one area they could be maintained at GREAT effort. This did happen from time to time, but generally only when domestic vehicles were not available. As soon as they were made available... the captured stuff was just run into the ground and abandoned when they broke down. How did you resolve this problem in the case of a nation which relied very heavily on captured materiel and which historically kept some of them going almost 25 years beyond the last being produced in the parent nation ? All nations in CMBB will have access to some captured stuff based on evidence of "common" use. Meaning, more than 30 or so were used. But if you play with Rarity on... forget about ever seeing captured stuff in your Quick Battles So basically the Finns will get BT-7's (widrawn from service altogether by late 1943) because they were used in numbers but the few T-34's and the two KV's that played much more vital role in the war effort are out because of this "30-vehicle rule" ? And this means the Finns do not get most of the AC's either ? Historically the Finnish armoured division worked with T-26's and other assorted captured stuff, later supplemented/replaced by the Stugs because they were the most numerous vehicles present in the OB at any given time. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by The Commissar: I always thought the "Yaaa" sounded German, not American. Americans would perhaps yell "Yeah!", but this was a distinct "Yaa"-ing. Could it have something to do with the fact Ja is Yes in German ? Yessssss !!! is the modern pronounciation for a success in English so Jaaah !!! translates to Yessss !!!

Originally posted by Madmatt: I have full or nearly complete sound sets for all included nations other than Romanian and Hungarian. If anyone can natively (we ONLY use native speakers) speak either language please contact me AT ONCE! I hope you do way better than the CC3 Finnish mod voices. The mod voices were kind of fun and whacky but not really good. And they used speakers who were from Turku for crying out loud ! Not that I have anything against the Turku dialect but.....

Originally posted by John Kettler: Full Moon? That may well be The Joke That Kills! Do you get Mooned when you get admonished by him ?