Tero

Originally posted by tss: Just about the only advantage of horse-drawn artillery that I can think of was that a horses could take light guns (<= 76 mm) through more difficult roadless terrain than gun tractors of the era. However, this is not very important thing since in general you don't want to get your guns in the end of a very difficult supply line. However, that roadless terrain does not have to be "difficult". One more thing going for the horse drawn team over the motorized team is the fact that you can place the guns to locations unspotted more readily than you can with a motorized tractor. If you were using a motorized tractor you would leave tell tale tracks marks on the ground that direct the airattacks and spotters right to the firing position. With a horses you could draw the gun through the woods and avoid the fields or other terrain features that are susceptible to damage which is hard to conceal. Places like that are inside and in the edges of woods and other places some distance away from the road. Finnish artillery was mostly horse drawn and losses (speaking about the summer of 1944 in particular) to counterbattery fire and aerial attacks were surprisingly low compared to the (early) losses sustained when the horses were plowing the field away from the batteries and the guns had to be abandoned simply because there was no way to tow them away. IIRC Finnish firing positions were located mostly inside woods in small natural clearings that made spotting them from the air that much more difficult than if they had been out in the open.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: The reason why German heavies are so easily lost in CM is because people totally misuse them. I think some of the seeming misuse is brought on by the lack of psychological impact on the Allied AI tankers. The player expects the Allied tankers to soil their pants. Instead they act like the automatons they are, not really caring what they are up against. Their aim is not affected by sweatty palms and fragile nerves. .....instructing single Tigers to RETREAT when facing JS-2 tanks Basically, this is a GERMAN report, taken from early in CM's timeframe, that specifically states that Tigers aren't what they used to be. The way I read it it states the opposing armour (HW and tactics ?) is not what it used to be. Tactical principles were mentioned, not HW specs. There is a difference. I saw nothing that implied the combat capabilities of the Tiger itself had diminished (like the penetrating power or accuracy of the 88 diminishing), only that one specific vehicle (IS-2) was better left alone if it was not possible to use appropriate team work to outsmart the enemy formation. The Tiger was a large tank which made it a large target. That they are now vulnerable and need to stop behaving like the rest of the battlefield can not hurt them. Yes. But does that refer to the inferior quality of the armour or the increased capability of the enemy assets, especially the number of large bore (in this case the 122mm gun on the IS-2 in particular) weapons present in the battlefield ? What about the 85mm armed T-34 and SU-85 ? Another reason for the losses is that the Allied tankers have no serious fear of the big monsters. In reality, they often scooted from direct confrontations with them. CMBB's new vehicle morale will better simulate this. That is good to hear. Will the vehicle morale be affected by the presence of (or the threat of presence of) enemy infantry ? Incidentaly, will the CMBB be downward compatible with CMBO in any respect ? Are there any plans to make a CMBO Mark2 out of the CMBB game engine ? Is it even possible without months of recoding ? How deep are the vehicle specs involved in the arithmetics ? [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Simon Fox: There is little point in you buying it. Right in the final chapter (Conclusions) it clearly states:"Despite the ubiquitous use of horse drawn transport by the German Army in WWII there is absolutely no evidence to support the fallacious concept that they played any role in combat at the level portrayed in games like Combat Mission" (or somefink like that) See there you go, straight from the 'horses mouth' so to speak. Damnation !!! The rumbling sound you heard was my earth shattering. Is the cover pretty and are there any nice pictures of horsies in it ? [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

About gamey practises: Can blowing up houses as you go along added to the list ? "In order to liberate (=save) the village we had to raze it to the ground". I think to make things harder intentional damage to edifices should be addressed in the scenario orders.

Originally posted by Simon Fox: The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me. When is it going to be published in paperback ? I just looked it up and the price is a bit exorbitant. Well, it is time to start writing Santa soon anyway so I might add that one to the end of the list my sons are going to draw up.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. CMBO is not trying to represent Finnish force structures. Best wait to see how CMBB deals with the issue. Agreed. I just added that so people can see where some of my POV is coming from.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Gee, tero, I must either be spoiled or have been blessed by exceptional luck (which may amount to the same thing, yes? ), The two seem to go hand in hand. but I was exposed to the prevalence of horse-drawn transport in the German and other armies quite a while back, along with some discussion of their logistic and maintainence burden. Well, I'll be damned. Who let the cat is out of the bag ? And that in spite of being by the handicap of being an American and only reading in the English language. Is a handicap necessarily an impediment ? I suppose it was just blind luck that I stumbled onto Strategy & Tactics magazine nearly thirty years ago, where such tidbits of critical information often found their way into the pages, and thence into some corner of my brain. I trust Strategy & Tactics has as wide a circulation the National Enquirer has. I guess what I am trying to say is that while your presumption may be a reasonable inference drawn on your experience in reading, it isn't the whole story. I fully agree. The problem in many of these multinational debates is there is precious few sources accessible to both parties. I can direct you to any number of Finnish sources and you could point out a similar number of obscure, long out of print, sources. The net result is (too often) a pissing contest of biblical proportions unless a lucky break (like the issue of a magazine dated 30 years ago, when I was ~7 years old and could not speak English yet) comes along and resolves the impasse. Provided both parties are still in speaking terms. Your posts strike me as good-natured in spirit and tone, and I hope mine does as well. I try to keep things civil for my part. Your posts have always been on the up and up. BTW: you do not happen to have a scanner on you ? And the article. I would love to add it to my collections.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: CMBB will have variable ice thicknesses, but no dynamic ice damage. But it does get damaged and breaks while the game is in progress ? [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Michael emrys: It seems to need repeating that in WW II the platoon leader did not use his radio (assuming he even had one; more likely in most armies he would have used a field phone) to control his squads. That was for reporting back to company HQ and receiving orders from same. The presence of the field phone did not quarantee there was no need to use runners to keep in touch with Company. The platoon CO would be dispatching runners to squads AND Company at the same time. BTW: the small HQ team is historically inaccurate at least if the text book OB of the Finnish army is observed. There was 2 rifle squads and 2 LMG squads in a Finnish platoon. The leaders would of course convene but in combat their place was with the squads.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Uhmm... so you mean that since I am an American, all I am allowed to read is stuff from the American perspective written about the American experience in WWII??!? By no means. In the past whenever this topic has come up one of the arguments was the lack of quantifiable evidence to support the presence of said units in the FEBA. I have read more than a few English language WWII histories (both American and British along with others) and from experience I know the Anglo-American histories very, VERY rarely mention these particular battlefield "assets" in their narratives. Given the saturation of the German army with horses I find it curious to say the least. Perhaps GI Joe from Montana felt it better to leave out the unsavoury tales of battlefield butchery of these innocent (Nazi ? ) beasts of burden as it would have blemished his clean record as the saviour of the world. "War is hell" would cover that bit of the battle field occurances. Damn, that means I'll have to return about 90% of my multi thousand dollar library. That SUCKS, but thanks for letting me know that I've been a naughty boy by reading up on things non-American written by people born in Godless non-American countries. I hope you are not going to wind down this thread and lock it up because of biased remarks like that. Given the present international situation. Or does that apply only to the General Forum ? Can you corraborate or trash my assesment on the Anglo-American WWII histories and their handling of said "battlefield" assets in the text ? IME the "cool" stuff like tanks and guns are well covered but the not-so-cool stuff is bypassed with the remark "the German army was not the mechanized force it was painted up to be" and it is left at that. Yes, I understand that there is, in theory, a place for motorcycles, horses, and bicycles in CM. They are, however, not generally part of its scope. They CAN be, but not generally. See the difference? What prevents you from widening the scope ? The game engine could already handle the different types of battles. Stuff like the map generation routine and deployment zone assignement ? Trust me, the entire Beta team tried to figure out a way to make it work and everybody came up with bupkis. And yes Tero, there were Fins, Germans, Russians, French, Irish, English, Canadian, and probably some others involved in the discussion. Can you give any concrete examples of the trials and how they failed to deliver ? Wouldn't want you to think it was just a bunch if ig'nert 'mericuns calling all the shots Perish the thought. Pretty much nothing happens for no reason.

Originally posted by Sergei: What... you play it with your pants on?!? :eek: With both hands. If I am feeling gay I alternate hands when I'm doing the magic that I do. :cool:

Originally posted by Moon: No, the idea (as in "ideal" ) is to find them and observe them, gather intelligence and then get the heck out without being seen. Few recon formations are equipped to actually fight what they find, and if that's indeed the mission (combat recon) than you can be certain they'd send in armored cars and light tanks instead of motorcycles You ARE aware of the German recce SOP ? A unit would drive along towards a suspected enemy position, it would stop, look around, perhaps fire a round or a burts or two and then haul ass back to cover at high speed trying to convince the concealed enemy unit to think it has been spotted and to get it to open fire to actually reveal its positions.

Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Sadly horses are out, as per BTS, not because of their supposed non-usage in battle, but due to modelling and coding difficulties. After all, think how long it took for someone to realize that when a horse runs, all its legs are simultaneously off the ground... At least British paras used a collapsible wheelbarrel to haul stuff around. I would think this would not be too hard to model. I still fail to see why a horse cart can not be modelled using an infantry unit as a base (the para wheelbarrel for example). The only alterations would be load bearing capability, stamina and speed. All the other factors, like morale (panicking under fire etc) could be used straight from the infantry unit base settings without the end result being overly unrealistic. The 3D graphics should not be to complicated. Hell, we accept a field gun in tow with its undercarriage deployed without any undue gripes of it looking unrealitically funky.

Originally posted by MrSpkr: I am using anecdotal in the general sense, i.e., based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers. That fact that someone is not a scientific observer does not deter his ability to look across a field and see horses being used to limber guns or to pull carts. I know. But BTS has taken a defensive posture that relies heavily on this point. If you are looking for quantitative evidence, review German military records relating to the number of horses (in broad terms) used on teh Western Front. I am not escpecially looking for it but BTS will not hear of it unless there is a wealth of evidence cathered that is undeniable. Note also that many German infantry divisions had staff veterinarians whose job was to take care of the horses. The Finnish army had an even more extensive veterinary service (relatively speaking). However, if 'anecdotal' causes you problems, then let me rephrase, at least as far as MacDonald is concerned: There are EYEWITNESS accounts related BY THE AUTHOR involving the use of horses. Chill, man ! I'm rooting for the good guys in this one. Just like you. So, if you believe anecdotal was a poor term, substitute 'eyewitness'. Eyewitness works much better, thank you. You are wellcome.

Originally posted by Moon: For self-preservation while moving in rear areas and/or during scout operations when running into unexpected enemy and trying to get away, but certainly not as an assaulting weapon I would say. Why was the MG facing forward with a very limited field of fire then ?

Originally posted by MrSpkr: Actually, there are several anecdotal accounts of horses being used for various purposes by the German army on the Western Front. That is the operating phrase: anecdotal account. Hard cold facts are needed, no adectotal (hear say) evidence is admissible in these mens court.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Bottom line is that even if we could correctly simulate the real world limitations of this unique vehicle, we might still not opt to include it because it doesn't fit into CM's scope very well. One more potential nail to the coffin: they mostly operated on frozen lakes. Will there be a realistic ice breaking routine that would plunge units, including the aerosleds, into the freezing water when the ice gets broken by falling artillery rounds and what not ?

Originally posted by ciks: HOW DARE YOU TO THROW DOUBT UPON DECISION OF GODS??? Can you present the argument, that this is not true? Michael summed it up pretty well. I had a feeling that everyone agrees on that (at least in this BBS)? In the words of MrSpkr Don't trust your feelings., young padawan. You have missed a few very good debates on the subject, judging by your apparent ignorance of the subculture that swims in the undecurrent. I see. But this kind of battle isn't modelled in CM:BO, i'm sure you know there's only Attack/Deffend, Probe, Assault and ME. Question is will there be more types of battles in CM:BB and what should there be? Hmmmm.... all the present forms of battle imply prepared positions. No fluid situation is provided for, nor are any specific missions like Bypass and Delay. All you are expected to do is Engage and Hold Objective. CM basicaly is about "You are on this end of the map, enemy is on another, go and kick those bastards back to hell". Actions of larger scale like outflanking and exploiting the breach isn't really modelled, don't you think? You may imagine off course that you are the spearhead of attack or attacking into depth of enemy front, but in fact CM doesn't model these operational (?) level actions. Even an operational level action requires some troops actually take it. The CM game engine as it is now is fully capable of simulating these types of actions, only the restrictions set on the maps are the limiting factors.

For example, if your guys would draw fire, would they jump out of their "personal vehicles"? If so, can they mount the bikes again later? And how to implement this? It might be difficult and time-consuming, and therefore cannot be done (now, I hope). One way of doing it would be a class of infantry as a vehicle like unit with bicycle speed as its best possible speed. The problem would be the graphics. It would look silly having them "run" around along suitable terrain (mainly roads) like the birds in Viley. E. Coyote I just don't accept as a reason a historic explanation that isn't correct. True, BTS have devotion to realism and details, but some things have been and will be left out. Sometimes it is forgotten that the truth is not an universal constant. Bikes, bicycles and horses are out because there is no evidence in the Anglo-American WWII history writing of them ever being in the frontlines. The burden of proof has been placed on us and while we know it to be true we can not prove it because in the Finnish history writing it is taken for granted that the bicycles and horses were in the frontlines so it has not been necessary to state the obvious for the record. But what a game. The best you can do at home with your pants on is to play with it.

Originally posted by vskalex: Thanks! Getting cold here in the Nordic Trenches waiting for distant sound of engines starting up... Den glider in, den glider in.....

Originally posted by Wreck: Keep in mind this is a game. Harsh Realm this is not. In the real thing, regardless of what weapon a leader was actually carrying about, if he was doing his job he did not have a lot of time to use it. That would seem especially true after losing all of his staff. If the officer had lost all of his staff it means that he is in mortal danger of getting snuffed. What would he do in a situation like that: haul ass to save himself by abandoning his command, stick it out with a pistol or pick up the most appropriate piece of hardware he can find (rifle, SMG or even an LMG) and fight to the end ? So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol. Yes it does. Check out any HQ unit with 1-5 casualties and what the survivors are fielding. I started this thread because I saw a 4 man HQ unit with 1 casualty fielding 2 pistols and 1 SMG while the rifle had been dropped. The disabled radioman carried the rifle. OK, fair enough. Why should the officer all of a sudden stick to the pistol when the private humped the radio AND the rifle ? Dropping the rifle is IMO bad procedure because the LR firepower of the unit is seriously diminished and letting enemy units come close is something a HQ unit should be able to at least hinder somewhat at longer range if they are not able to stop the enemy from getting close. Instead what is modeled is an officer doing his job, which leaves him precious little time to exert firepower. Wrong. If the HQ unit has taken casualties it means the enemy most likely has a fix on the command unit and is likely to take steps to neutralize it. At that point the main task of the officer is to get his hands dirty and take steps to preserve his remaining command staff. This includes fighting it out with the enemy units. He can use the radio and do his job as a commander but he is in no way excempted from taking care of his of security if no friendlies can come to the rescue. You can kill the enemy indirectly with the radio but you have to be physically alive to be able to operate it.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: What does that have to do with CM? It is pertaining the question about what kind of battles can you set up with CM engine. Even in the CMBO world the battles were not fought as pitched battles. There were many pursuit/delay situations that pitted the attacker against an enemy of undetermined makeup and strenght in unspotted positions. If the CM premise of universal soldier is correct the only real difference is the terrain. Even the boggace terrain is very open compared to the forests of NE Europe. Imagine each type of CM battle taking place in the Ardennes (only the hills are a bit lower and the forest a bit thicker). The other factor is the Finnish infantry (and much of the Red Army infantry until ~1943-44) being almost entirely non-motorized. With only one armoured formation there was not much trafic going on in the frontlines that did not involve the bicycle and the horse (I bet you did not see that one coming. ) [ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by ciks: Well, BTS, IIRC, has clearly stated that motorcycles and cycles are out of the scope of the game. That does not mean they are 100% correct. The reccoinaisance has ALREADY been done when you start a CM battle, a contact has been made and this has to be reflected in scenario briefing. Oh, goody. The old "recce already done, in contact" routine. The situation described by Sergei is a pursuit/exploitation situation. Troops are advancing at high speed (best possible speed) towards an objective after the enemy positions have been overcome and the enemy is retreating. There is no way of knowing what kind of assets the enemy has in the area and how much time there has been for setting up a hasty defensive/delaying position. It that sense it could be said it happens AFTER the CM battle is over. The Finnish infantry units still had to ride them bikes to be able to reach the position they started out from in their pursuit/exploitation mission. The Finnish infantry was not motorized so it had to use what ever means available to get the necessary speed to fully expoit the breach. And the terrain was mostly lone roads running through densily forrested moderate hills. Many times they had to carry their bikes along when they had to perform outflanking manouvers throught the woods. [ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

The Walkie-Talkie was that big job you see packed on the radioman's back. I have had the (mis)fortune of carrying the modern LV-217 (IIRC the US designation is AN/PRC-25 or something like that, anyways the one used in Vietnam). I would hesitate to call it a walkie-talkie. Being a bulky piece of equipment you really prefer to stop for talking. I have also had the (mis)fortune of being in the wirelaying gang and while the radio was preferred because it was easier overall (no reeling back after the job was done) the wirelaying apparatus allowed faster movement (after a fashion ) and was less conspicious (no aerial). The smaller hand-held job issued to platoon leaders was called a Handy-Talkie, though the movies have gotten the public hopelessly confused on this score. I do not recall seeing that definition before. Not sure about that last part, since comand radius in CM does not depend on radio communication. If this is true it does defy the premise of superiority of radio equipped HQ teams in combat CC as it is now represented in CM. However, since it does depend in part on runners, maybe you're right after all. Either way. Hmm. You mean slowed down because the FO is having to hump his own radio? I'm not sure he'd be any slower than his radioman. The assorted units (like HMG's) which are unable to run can not do so because the "load balancing" brings down the average speed of the men. How much did a WWII era portable radio weigh ? The LV217 weighs around 10kg. Add that to basic combat load I think you'd have a stronger case that they should never be fast units at all. Either that or they should tire quickly if required to move fast. True. What about the weapons they should carry (the original topic) ?

Originally posted by Holien: Well you learn something new every day. I would guess we would not be seeing this in CM2, just a guess... Talk about gamey recon !