Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
I think what Fenno means by "hard to model artillery" is the fact that the shell fall pattern and density in CM seem to be modelled and optimized to favour the large bore artillery with the target point in unobstructed LOS.
The 14" are absolute killers while the big arsed Screaming Mimmies fall all over the place killing friendlies more than the enemies. The effect of the lower scale 81mm mortars and 75mm artillery, and to some extent even the 105mm's and 155mm's, are downplayed in their lethality with the need to have clear LOS to the target spot to attain maximum density in the fall pattern. Any and all fire missions that are directed at a spot out of LOS deteriorate into harrassing fire by default. It is hard to get a realistic shock effect of a surprise fire mission on troop concentrations out of LOS when the fall patterns are what they are in CM now.
Target reference points alleviate this but even I would hesitate to call for the TRP's to be made to cost next to nothing for the Finns to model the Finnish artillery practises, procedures and abilities. The RL Finnish artillery was developed to operate in a terrain that translates into CM as rural map with few roads, dense woods and moderate hills. The CM current artillery model is made with favours the use of artillery in relatively flat and open terrain.
-
Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Finland was a strange case.
Indeed. Even if the history of WWII is written in black and white norms only it is hard to cathegorically place us in either coloured collumn.
individual Finns joined the Waffen SS and were often placed in high NCO positions as being politically more reliable than other nordics.
What is your source on this bit of data ? This statement is inaccurate at best. There was a volunteer battalion which served in the Viking division from 1941 until 1943 when it was recalled home. There may well have been isolated cases of individuals joining the SS but as all Finnish males of military age were needed in our own army large numbers of them going off individually without permission from the authorities was quite impossible.
Finland had its version of the NAZI party,
What is your source on this bit of information ? Please supply the names of the parties.
but the ruling party was not NAZI, more like a real hard core right wing war party
:confused: Again, like the good professor you are you should be more specific with the names of the parties.
Are you sure you are looking at the source for the Finnish and not the Japanese data ? Or are you reading this straight from a Soviet propaganda leaflet ? When Titans Clashed ? If it is the latter you should crossreference the source thoroughly. The bits about Finland in it are taken unedited straight from Soviet 60's era books.
IIRC the wartime government was a coalition (rainbow) government which was set up by left wing, center and MODERATE right wing parties. I'll lokk that one up ASAP to confirm this.
Finland however was about the worst allies the Germans could have asked for. They were half hearted in supporting offensives
How many joint Finnish-German offensives were there ? What support was not given ?
and rapidly lost their vaunted ability once they switched from defensive to offensive.
Like when exactly ?
Their logistical supply chain was a mess,
Not according to the Finnish sources. Granted, we used aircraft from ALL parties except the Japanese and that complicated things. And we were dependent on the German supply of oil. Otherwise there was nothing wrong with the supply chain of the field armies.
and Germans could not convince the Finns to rationalize supply or weapons issue, in part because Finns wanted independence from German force organization.
And this is all bad ? It was easier to take what you need from the enemy than hump it all the way from the rear. Besides, there were more than enough small arms and artillery for the army after Winter War, courtesy of the Red Army and western aid. Why switch it all for arms you would have had to pay with hard curency ?
The reality of the Finnish participation in the Second World War was that it was self-serving.
Our leaders were looking after Finnish interest only. Guilty as charged.
It only turned to Germany when the allies turned their backs on her (because Russia had become an an ally) but it was more a fair weather ally of the Germans, and as soon as the wind blew the other way in a serious manner, it did an about face and was against Germany.
Opportunists all the way. Unlike the altruistic Allies.
Unlike Sweden and Denmark it did not try to save European Jews but niether did it actively deport Jews to Germany for slaughter like the Vichy did.
In this we ARE in the same growd with the US and the UK.
BTW: you failed to metion the fact that Finnish jews served in the Finnish army.
So aside from its glory days in the Winter War, you just cannot assign Finland a good or bad mark for its participation. More like it was a minnow in a room of sharks and it did its best to survive, which in fact it did.
True.
-
Originally posted by hansfritz:
...and to see if all Fins shagged Reindeer.They were correct.
Has the ban on national slurs been lifted already ?
Any way wasn't Finland on the Nazi side.
I suggest you look it up. You could start by listing all the actual mutual treaties Finland and Germany signed.
If you are correct in your assumption why then was the only action your forces took against us a RAF bombing raid in 1941 that dropped its load way off target while FAF planes watched over not far away from the bomber formation ?
[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:
Excellent suggestions. If BTS wants to improve something, it has to be the infantry. I'll also add that the Tactical AI can seem pretty dumb in close combat situations. Once I had an enemy tank get stuck in a hedge, 5-10 meters from two of my squads. IIRC they even had Panzerfausts. Well, guess what. They spent 2 minutes just firing their small arms at the tank, and taking 4 or 5 casualties in the process. A smarter AI would have either used its panzerfausts or assaulted the tank... And they were veteran troops BTW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The use of Panzerfausts is iffy at best (not to mention the rather cronic lack of luck when actually firing it). Furthermore there are times the troops refuse to fire it at armour but is quite happy to waste it away on infantry moments later (or better yet before the armour enters effective range).
There should be at least a way define target classes so that you could detail for example some squads (and AT guns) to hunt armour while others take care of the infantry.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
That's not what I said at all.
I know. But it did sound like you said it.
Time in England was spent constantly training;
That would stand to reason. But the sentence implies most of the British army was stationed in the British Isles for the most part of the war.
the value of that training is open to debate.
National bias/force specific performance. I think I'll abstain at this time.
See John English.
Where ?
Have you ever served in the military? A British or Canadian soldier is taught that his regiment is the best in the world - and to prove it, he must thump the living **** out of every other serviceman the second he gets to the pub or bar.
The Finnish army was and has been a conscript army and there has been traditional interservice pickering among conscripts but I do not recall any habitual violence when men from different service happen to enter the same premices. Donald Ducks reek of herring, Engineers have the arms of orangutangs, arty pukes can not find the head without proper coordinates and even then they spray it around just to make sure they hit it.
When some 95+% of the adult male population have served in the armed forces there is no point in rying to pick the best unit. Our army held back the Soviets twice so we KNOW we are good. Or at least our fathers were.
I'll take smiley as a sign to ignore this bit of silliness!
Just trying to find some sense in the seemingly illogical conclusion drawn from (what I find) incomplete facts. I'll read the book first before I get serious.
In all honesty, I think those kinds of situations are overstated...
Perhaps. But at personal level they MAY have been a factor that eroded morale of the troops.
and Tommy wore rolls of 9mm bullets in his Battle Dress trouser cuffs. Made good saps when used in a bar fight, according to the veterans. Tommy quickly got his own back when he returned!
I hope in most cases it was extracted from the GI and not the wife/girl friend.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I think that was the point, Tero. The British standardized their training as far as possible, so that if you were number 3 rifleman in an infantry section in Italy, your duties were the same as if you were number 3 rifleman in Normandy.
Was the British training really so constricted that if you were trained #3 rifleman that was all you knew about small unit tactics application ? If the squad Bren gunner got zapped nobody else knew how to operate it until they got a new Bren gunner.
And after a stint in the combat zone any British troops sent back home unlearned any combat experiences they might have aqcuired upon setting their feet on homeland soil.
And did "most of the British Army bided its time at home" in reality ?
Why did the British servicemen accuse the Americans of stealing their women ? Or was that just Nazi propaganda ? It was their compatriots all along....
That would also explains why the British troops unlearned their combat experiences. Being sent back home made them suscepible to severe morale hits when they learned their wifes and sweethearts had been sexually active while they were away. A fiendish American plot to undermine their allies performance so that they could claim all merits when the war was over.
As for how the Germans regarded the British - I know they called the Canadians the "Tommy SS", but that is because Canadians were ubersoldiers.
Like the Finns.
That one is easy to explain. They were clearly decendants of immigrant überFinns.
-
Originally posted by Michael emrys:
The question is how commonly that was done in the 30 minute time limit typical for a CM battle.
When we think about this from the large scale KG/BG organization then I agree the timeframe is relevant. When we think about this from the local, squad/platoon level organization I'd say the timeframe is irrelevant. I think that instead of large scale we ought to look at this from a small scale localiced POV. While no specific quotes spring to mind off hand I am sure there are plenty of accounts describing junior officers rallying leaderless individual troops and squads and leading them in local operations (for example counter attacks), which fall into the timeframe. I'm sure relevant accounts can be found pertaining the actual landings and break out of the beaches at Normandy in addition to the airborne troops.
Was it common enough that it can be included in the game without leading to ahistorical gamey play?
I'd say it was common. In that respect it would not be ahistorical as such.
Gamey "suicide by enemy" disposing of weaker HQ's is indeed a valid concern.
I'm just wondering if TacAI is already excersising it when it seems to be unrealistically leading the attacks with the HQ units.....
[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Battle Drill, Battle Drill, Battle Drill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You summoned me, sir ?
I placed the order already.
The synopsis makes it almost sound like no veterans of the Western Desert and/or Med went over with the rookies. And if they did there was no difference between the vets and rookies and how they performed in combat with regards to tactics.
British veterans weren't ?
One more thing: how did the Germans regard the British troops compared to the American troops ?
[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Germanboy:
That notion is wrong.
Then I stand corrected.
In which case it is right that the unit should suffer the penalty for being out of command.
Hmmmmm..... I'd say there are degrees of being out of command control depending if it is just a squad or an entire platoon. As things stand there is no such thing as a platoon out of CC.
If a unit has been out of contact with its parent HQ for, say, 20 minutes in a highly volatile situation (which is the case in the great majority of CM games
) and it has completed all missions assigned by its own parent HQ the unit leader would latch on to the nearest friendly HQ or in some cases even a FO as they were known to be more readily in contact with the CHQ and be aware of the situation and how it is developing.The dilemma here is the fact that the unit responce time to player orders deteriorates "only" when a squad falls out of platoon HQ CC (because of whatever reason). AFAIK no penalty is received for losing a Company HQ if one is present on the map. (On a related note: the player is not thought to be represented by the most senior commander on the map but is he just the puppeteer pulling the strings. Any changes forthcoming to that in later remakes ? A designated player HQ would bring more flavour into campaign games at least.)
IRL the squad leader (or a platoon leader for that matter) would use his own initiative but that would mean either cutting the unit from the players control all together (no CC) or dropping the responce time to 0 (own initiative).
IRL such expedients as runners were used to reley orders but what if there is no company level HQ on the map (due to point limitations or what not) to actually simulate this ? Also, would a company commander send men to try and reach cut off single squads across hostile territory ? He would perhaps try and reach the platoon commander but what if the HQ unit is killed ? In case of a platoon size battle the HQ unit would soon run out of men if squads started dropping off the air and the leader had to dispatch men left and right.
-
Originally posted by Maastrictian:
I assume you are referring to the various ad hoc units that got put together during the rather confused night preceding D-day.
The confusion and organizational disorder lasted way beyond that first night.
I can't think of any examples when this happened under and in less than 30 minutes, except where the officer taking command was of higher rank than Lieutenant (which CM already allows).
I can not quote exact examples but I have read reports of hodge podge units being assembeled and moved towards the sound of the guns and key objectives. For all I know these hodge podge units fought in the composition they moved in until order was restored many days later.
I have a notion in CM a Coy commander can assume command of orphaned infantry units only if the units are from the same company the HQ is from. Support assets like HMG's are of course a different story.
Even if any Coy HQ can take command of any infantry unit out of CC there are times when there either is no Company HQ or it is too far away to be of any use in the tactical situation.
The time limit (of 30 mins) is irrelevant. I would not say it would be unrealistic to have a veteran master sargeant head a counter attack with remnants from several different units within the time limits in CM in a CM scope battle.
[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:
The problem is that while you may not be able to identify the exact type and model of vehicle it's pretty obvious in which direction that big long metal tube sticking out from it is pointing...With regards to the Archer at least...
Remember too, at the point that you get a specific texture displayed (in this case the texture for all Generic Tank Destroyers) your ID of the unit is getting better as its essentially the second level of display, the first being the blocky gray models.
[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Madmatt ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does this cause the funky Marders with guns facing backwards when AA HT's are spotted but not yet ID's properly ?
[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
vskalex: does your girlfriend think a game of chess is immoral glorification of war ? If not then you should point out that basically CM is nothing more than a bit more ellaborate game of chess. And the sad fact is that even if we burned all our books and war games people still get killed in war each and every second.
I think that denying kid the possibility to play war will deprive them of the possibility to learn some basic facts about human behaviour when they can still learn such things as compassion and where to draw the limit in respoding in anger. Kids who have never played war with their friends will never think the "enemy" is another human being, only because they can not envision their best friends in the opposing force. When they hook on games like Doom they will not be able to feel a thing for the poor pixelized monster when they blow them away by the hundred. The past few decades has seen this "girlie" approach on raising children and the ban on "violent" toys. And now they wonder how the youth these days are so violent and with no ability for compassion. We are reaping what we have sown.
People who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. But in order to learn from the past you have to know enough facts and basic truths about it to form an opinion that turns into a learning curve.
I have spent many an hour discussing the futility of war with the wife. In my view war is rather like a force of nature while she think people should have learned already.
She goes to see war flicks with me, preferably to see one with a decent story line. She liked the opening sequence of SPR because of its realism. She also liked the Thin Red Line. She absolutely hated Pearl Harbour. Not because of the historical inaccuracies (which ticked me off) but because the nurses acted like horny 20-year old girls of our era, she also wondered about the speed with which the leading nurse forgot her true love (and how they killed off the odd man out in the end so as not to complicate the story line too much
). The level of professionalism of the nurses in the film was something she detested also.We both agreed it was a remake of Titanic, only they sank more ships (disrespect intended only for the movie makers, not the troops in Pearl Harbour). We plan on renting Tora Tora Tora ASAP for a second opinion on Pearl Harbour in movies. TCM is showing "30 seconds over Tokyo" so that aspect has already been covered.
She also sort of liked Starship Trooper, except she would like it more if there was a bit less gore in it.
This is BTW something she has been wondering for quite some time now: the movies have become more and more photorealistic but the storylines and the morals of the stories keep plummeting.
With the recent goings on in the world she is convinced the movie industry has been quietly indoctrinating us so that the reaction of the "confident consumer" will be under the control of the media when the time comes. And that time seems to be upon us.
While the deed itself was horrific and condemnable she has said the only real consequence of the incident she has seen is the laying off nearly 100 000 people. She says that is indicative of the true level of dedication the global market force (ie. the money) has shown and is willing to show to the "confident consumer" for their troubles.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:
If you mean leaders of one platoon taking over orphaned squads from a different platoon, not necessarily. And for good reason, as has been discussed previously in other threads.
Michael
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wonder what the veterans of the 82nd and 101st Airborne for example would say about the premise that leading or being led by HQ's other than from your parent formation under combat conditions is ahistorical and unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by Michael emrys:
[added] It occurs to me that something similar could also be applied to other teams. Even though they do not require spotters, it might be nice to have them locked to an HQ that has especially desireable leadership bonuses, rather then just being the nearest.
This kind of a feature would also make it possible for other than parent company command units to take under their care units which have lost their command units.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
I agree with BTS's general gag order. BUT.... The Peng tread is due for a renewal soon. Who ever said it has to be the not-so-serious BS venting tread every time ?
The names of the tread have always been a joke but if it was named something like "A Peng challenge that changed the world" and there was a silent agreement that this time we dispence with the bull and stick to more serious matters while keeping it unlocked by being polite for a change perhaps BTS will let it live.
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
That would depend on the army and the time period.
More specifically it would depend to the organization of the artillery arm and how FO's were integrated (or not as the case may be) into the infantry force structure.
In your example case of a certain army fighting in the North, artillery FOs would usually direct the fire of only their own batallion until new firing methods were implemented in 1943.
The instances were are talking about pertain mostly to the attack phase in 1941 and the widrawal and defence during the summer of 1944. Apart from Gora (even that during that bit the artillery was in static positions for the most part) the artillery fired from prepared positions between early 1942 and the summer of 1944.
What artillery the batallion had available depended on what the division had at hand in the KTR (field artillery regiment with 48 artillery pieces if at full text book strenght) assigned to it. The mortars (a total of 24 81-82mm and 12 120mm in the entire division !) mortars were formed as KrhK (mortar company) at the regimental level. If we talk about brigades they had 6 120mm mortars and 24 artillery pieces in 2 batteries (patteristo). The average range of the guns was 10 km's.
Given these facts any HQ (or FO for that matter), IF the lines of communications were intact, could call in strikes in known targets. As I said earlier if the battle was in any degree planned (ie there had been time to do even some preliminary preparations) the artillery was given a fire plan and any and all FO's were privy to them.
Also, lets not forget the method of firing at the sound of the fighting using the map and target resolutions and calculations made at the battery in case the FO went off the air. As the artillery was horse drawn for the most part and it had only a range of 10 km's they were moving most of the time if the situation was volatile. In case they were in positions and the **** hit the fan they habitually fired at their own discretion by the sound of the battle if they did not have any FO's to direct them and they knew they would have to abandon the guns and all remaining unused ordnance if the lines broke.
After that, any FO could direct fire from any available artillery batallion (sometimes mortars were also included in the same net, but often they weren't). Sometimes in critical situations the FO didn't even know whose fire he was directing.
Concur. But in the case of mortars being in the same net the communications hub was at the infantry HQ (regimental or lower) anyway so the fire request could and often would have been given or relegated to the team that could execute it rapidly.
Again, depending on the situation. The pre-attack artillery bombardment was certainly planned, but after that a FO was free to call fire on targets of his choice.
If you have Koskimaas Veitsen Terällä you can see that in the case of Ihantala the map overlay (p149) for the fireplan had more than 50 target references and target zones (sulku) on an area of 3km by 5km area.
And, in 1941 (the relevant period for this particular army), the fire mission would be fired from one or more batteries of his own batallion. (The initial strikes were almost always fired with full-batallion strength, but in the later phases of battles smaller missions would often be fired).
Concur.
Also, not all "planned" attacks would have a prepared fire-plan, though most certainly had. Those that didn't have one would usually be pursuit battles or advances through unknown terrain where the exact location of enemy forces was not known.
Check out
http://foto.hut.fi/seura/historia/toiminta.html
Note the speed with which maps with grid references and place names were made available to the troops.
[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Separating the FO's from specific, dedicated ordinance would be realistic. If the battle was "planned" it would have involved an artillery fire plan (including targets, positions, timetable if applicable etc) to integrate the artillery into the overall mission plan. In an unnamed era army fighting near the arctic region at least.
Integrating on-map assets into the fireplan depends on the fire plan, organization and communications network.
In CM terms that could perhaps translate into integrated company level FO teams (platoons ?) while the actual off map assets would be bought separately. An alterated cost structure in the firing element would deal with the "gamey" applications and on-map assets could be sold by the battery instead of single guns as they are now.
-
They can now fire under HQ LOS. Would it be too unrealistic to have the onboard mortars fire using the FO's as spotters ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
Gamey, shmamey, it is not allowed by the engine because of the borg spotting model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I quess this is why the infantry can not fire off its small arms beyond LOS (in the dark for example) even if it was physically possible.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
"Bring 6 to 1" was sound tactical advice against the better German makes. Against Pz IVs and StuGs, they probably tried to bring 2-3 times.
If the memoires are indicative ALL German tanks were considered Tigers in the west so that would mean the Western Allies did indeed seek to stack them 6 to 1 all the time.
-
Originally posted by redwolf:
If it is a Panther with the weak spot, then you have a 10% chance of a weak spot penetration instead of the normal 1% one.
A weak spot at a flat faced matlet gets 10% chance of being found at 90 degrees across the entire lenght (basically) ? What about in a curved mantlet, like the one in the Panther ? The weak spot is always in the part that gets hit from 90º when the gun elevation is at 0º ?
If two tanks fire at it in two separate instances does the weak spot move around for each of them so that regardless of the circumstances both have a 10% chance of hitting it eventhough either or both would not even get to aim, let alone hit, the actual weak spot IRL (beacuse it is masked by the gun for example) ?
Also, a weak spot would have to have a chance percentage of 0 at 180º (basically). If the chance is increased by 9 (or 10)% then it would get an unrealistic penetration chance of 9 (or 10)% at 180%. That would make a weak spot damage and/or kill a vehicle with a grazing hit at 0º that would not do any damage IRL.
I hope this is not the case.
In addition, the Panther has low quality steel.
Compared to what ?
The turretless Hetzer is of course discounted is CMBO.
Along with the other non-turreted assault guns and tank hunters.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:
I bet a Finn armed with a wrist rocket would have shut that place down in 20 minutes flat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That goes without saying
Check out though
http://www.hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/kuivasaa/kuivasaa.html
and
http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Marine/winter.htm
For Finnish coastal defences
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:
Fortunately you can still easily knock them out with Stuarts or Greyhounds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... after you have been given their approximate (but quite accurate) positions by the sound contacts they give out.
-
Originally posted by Germanboy:
Not sure what 'extention' means. Clausewitz (not being an English speaker by birth) said in German:
'Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln'.
I would translate this (and have seen it translated) as:
'War is the continuation of political action by other means'
'continuation' in the sense of 'going on', 'constant succession' and 'extension'. Implying that when you don't get anywhere with political action, you resort to using the armed forces.
In a sense it is an extension as you do not change you policies, you just extend them using other means of communications than verbal communication.
I would contend that that is as true today as it was in the 18th century, although what has changed is the introduction of democratic politicians and their risk-averseness.
The modern cycle is a fiscal quartal so policies change overnight. There is little continuity nowadays. The people in power do not seem to look beyond their term in the office. In the 19th century the cycle was decades so war was an almost natural form of political continuity.
Been ages since I read this quote, so it may be off, but this is what I recall.
At least I see no flaw in your recollection and interpretation.
(It has been 10+ years since I used my German skills actively.
)
British Army tactics
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I suppose Finland was lucky in this regard - to be fighting on her own soil.
We did have our share of problems in this field also even if they were not as pronounced. There were German troops in Finland and especially their logistics personel were in an "advantage" in towns because they could abscond extra rations and other supplies. There were also isolated incidents involving Russian POW's who were working in the farms.
What was the Finnish policy regarding home leave?
Once the static phase started the leave rotation was started and it worked rather well and it was fair. The farmers got special furloughs in spring and in the autumn and families resettling the Isthmus were given a chance to go and rebuild their homes. The timing of the Red Army assault in 1944 was well thought out in this respect. A sizable portion of the troops were on farming leave and artillery horses and tractors were doing farm work quite far from the positions.
One doesn't want to confuse battle experience with training.
Quite. However, having not read the book it is hard to envision the Desert Rats going soft all of a sudden prior to D-day while the 21st Panzer remained at its peak even when it had been rebuilt around the remains of the old illustrious formation. Unless of course the formations remained the same but the veteran troops were reassigned to other units. Which in turn did not happen according to the synopsis.
...but am open to correction.
Likewise.