Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
>I have not exibited any bigotry etc towards
>Finns, Tero etc. I merely replied to Tero,
>what you or anyone else chooses to
>interpret it as, I can hardly effect.
I do not feel bigotted.
>That said I will apologise if Tero or
>amyone else is misunderstanding my posts
>intent, in epressing my opinion concerning
>Tero's enthusiasm in promoting Finlands
>supremecy.
Not supremacy. Diffences in tactics and doctine.
The facts I present seem to point out that our army was superlative. And it was ! But how do you implement that into a game realistically if the norms are Germans and Soviets ? We did not have anyway near the manpower or the amount of technical goodies. Only guts and ingenuity. We could not afford such losses both the norm setters could. That was reflected in our tactics and doctrine.
Swedes we are not, Russians we do not wish to become, let us be Finns.
>I was merely offering a counter point to
>the attitude I saw prevailant in the text,
>and from the replies, I was not the only
>one seeing it either.
So far the debate has been civil enough. We are shouting above each other like the proper gentlemen we are.
>I also believe had Tero thought I was
>taunting him, or an 'bigot' etc he would
>have brought it up he is quite capable of
>defending himself.
Damn straight ! Not that I do not wellcome a little shotgun from time to time.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>I don't get it, what do nationality
>modifiers have to do with this? Why do you
>need them to do what you describe?
Please note that when I talk about these modifiers I always refer to TacAI. I already use Finnish tactics in CM and I can not rely on the TacAI to do what I want it to do so I have to micromanage and use inappropriate commands that either deliver spectacularly or backfire miserably.
Did you take a look at the winter war site and the tactics section there. Can you honestly say that the Finnish and the Soviet tactics were so similar that they can be accurately modelled with the same TacAI ?
The TacAI is modelled according to certain rules. Are these rules really universal so they apply to all armies at all times as is ? There are some points in tactics that are common to each army but the solutions each army found and used are most certainly not universal, even if the commands were the same. For example the CM2 is rumored to include the Assault command as a new feature. That is good. The implementation is rumored to be so that the firepower is DIMINISHED (halved I think) for the assaulting unit to depict one half squad moving and the other covering. A Finnish unit in assault would sneak up on the intended target location and rush the last 20 meters or so firing at maximum ROF with all weapons. So what is the command I should use as I can not get the shock rush with any command that is currenly present ?
Also, on a joint mission with the Germans up north the Finnish troops almost lynched a German officer because he used a whistle to mark the start of the advance. That was the cue for the Germans as well as the Soviet troops being attacked.
Stealthy movement as all times was SOP for the Finnish army. A German officer once said he had seen smarter looking and more organized formations among the retreating armies in the west than the Finnish army was in advance. The Finnish collumn broke down into "coffee groups" after some time and it eventually looked like a disorganized rabble. This is because the Finnish army would move at the side of the road and in the forest so that the force could scatter to the forest to conceal itself fast should a recce plain fly over. Even if it came up on the formation by surprise it would not see the true size of the unit.
Is there going to be Pull Back/Disengage command in CM2 ? CM assumes that the disengagement is always to your baseline.
Come to think of it CM actually assumes that you are always attacking and never pulling back unless it is a rout.
Is the current set of command nationally biased against the Germans ?
>If Finnish SOP was to "stop the infantry
>and isolate the armor" what is preventing
>you from simply ordering you forces to
>attempt that and hoping your opponent is
>stupid enough to allow it to happen?
How many times have you shouted at the screen "Do NOT go there !" or "Do NOT engage THAT (infantry) unit (Wait for the tank which moving up just behind that obstrution) !" ? "Nonononono ! Not THAT way !" "I did NOT order you to do THAT !"
Some non-national dependant TacAI and other features:
- the "best cover near the enemy" bug still not fixed
- relative vs absolute spotting
- ambush marker isn't exactly what you would want it to be most of the time
- no way to assign fire sectors in defence
- no way to pull back forces realistically
- no secondary positions for the defenders so they pull back by either going forward or to a direction that will not be where you would set up your next line of defence
- TacAI will direct AT-guns to engage which ever type of target they please - no hold fire/preferred target orders
- a squad will fire only at one target at a time
- concealed bunkers and pillboxes will get revealed through sound contacts long before the enemy could actually spot it
Some national dependant behaviour patterns:
- morale related things like tank scare, or lack there of. Should there be progressively bigger morale hits for the troops according to their experience level when they are engageing armour at close range with Molotovs and satchel charges. Or should there be even morale bonuses for regular and better troops because they know the tanks are blind as bats ?
- any and all force dependant tactical intricasies beyond the human players control, such as the basic movement formations (single file, line abreast, diamond etc) and the spread between men in these formations
- individual initiative when not in CC
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naja:
tero, I would like to know more about the Finnish army. Many years of reading about WWII has taught me to take most accounts with a grain of salt (I must admit now reading mostly German accounts.) Unlike the most vocal here I prefer the human element of WWII and prefer the human element of the moment to the unit # and div x was 'here or there' which reminds me of a person memorising some boring baseball stat as opposed to the feel of an individual caught in a life and death struggle. If you could point me in the direction on the Finnish soldiers version of the war I would appreciate it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think
is a good place to start. Follow the links from there.
Finnish casualties can be searched in English at
http://tietokannat.mil.fi/menehtyneet/index_en.php3?alku=tosi
-
I think my nationality is not a big mystery.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hawk:
Bodø, Nordland (ok, Nordland is a county or shire, not a state).
10 points to anyone who finds out which country (without checking my profile!) :cool:
Hawk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's easy for us neigbours.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>Tero if the Russian's cant even pin down
>their actual human losses in the Winter war
>how can the Finns?.
Know thine enemy. Just because our army was ill equipped it does not mean they were clueless.
Radio listening service (and tapping into their phonelines occasionally) revealed their OOB, orders, sitreps and other data, including losses. You know how many men are in an enemy division so you tally them up and when a new division is brought up you calculate your own ammo usage and then you estimate how much you propably took out from the one that is relieved. Also eyeballing the battlefield in front of your positions gives you a rough idea how many had fallen that day.
The Finnish doctrine dictated that the defensive position should be in the hands of friendly troops at the end of the battle. That worked most of the time so any and all Soviet fallen that remained at the end of the day could be counted and rummaged to see if they rendered any valuable intel.
BTW: if you read your own scanario it assumes the enemy has broken through the MLR and is advancing in the Finnish rear area.
So much for überFinns and their impregnable defences and undefeatable soldiers. Things look serious so what do you do, as a commander of the force ? HERE is where the national modifiers step into the picture.
What usually happened was the armour would push through but the infantry would get stopped and shot up at the MLR (as per Finnish SOP: stop the infantry, it is more dangerous. Isolate the armour from the infantry and deal with the treaths in the order of urgency). In that situation a Finnish commander would gather all available troops for a counterattack. And as you are well aware the arctic day gives daylight from around 9am until 3pm. That means that the tanks would be helpless in the dark in a few hours anyway so they can be left alone to drive around while the counterattack is directed at the infantry at the point of the breach.
When the Red Army got its act together things got more difficult for the Finns. But when during Winter War the situation got gradually worse the summer of 1944 situation fared better because that time around our army had ample supplies of arms and munitions.
>Ok so now we have established that Soviet
>records are actualy falsified concerning
>any actions against the Finn's & only
>Finnish sources are reliable.
I think the records are not falsified. The histories the Soviets wrote were not very true to life because the whole Winter War affair was brushed under the carpet. And as for the assault of the summer of -44, they did not need to get into details with that. Lenigrad was secured and the dominions of the Nazis were beaten into submission in the end and that is all the public needs to know. Right
>Part of the problem lies in, yes the WW was
>an important historical event for Finland
>so it gets mega coverage,in Finland but,in
>the grander scheme Finland's part in WW2
>was minor & gets treated as such in most
>general histories.
That is understandable. But what little is written should resemble the actual events in this day and age. What has made matters worse is the fact that the Cold war rethorics and imagery have prevailed in the histories even if the archives have opened. It seems the historians are timid in making any new conclusions so they stick to the old mantras.
And we have gotten shafted yet again.
I do think Glantz is doing a valuable job in bringing the Soviet archives out. But what bothers me he does not seem to be doing any research based on the archives themselves, only copy/pasting from Soviet histories (mostly Krivosheev but others too). Reading When Titans Clashed really makes me think that he has been overrated as a historian. If I was mean I would say that his is no better than Irving, as a historian that is.
I hope his later books are more academically accomplished.
>Then everytime the subject comes up on
>troop quality or nationality modifiers; we
>get told repeatedly how uber Finnish troops
>were even super human, Ie, 5 Finnish cooks
>beat off an Soviet tank attack with soup
>ladels & pot holders, while still makeing
>sure to season the roast they were cooking,
>and doing the dishes etc.
This is truly a complex issue.
That übersoldier stuff just appears to be übersoldier stuff because you have been conditioned to think that only the big ones had the stuff that made heroes and the little ones are peanuts and they mimic the big boys in their actions.
Above is a scenario you yourself envisaged (which did also take place IRL) and I explained how a Finnish force would deal with a real tactical situation. And it was very different from the other armies responces, if you take into account the different doctrines that were prevailing at the time. Big armies with sufficent resources had their solutions based on what they had at hand and what were the most likely terrain types they would deploy them. Our army had to take into account the meager resources and how to utilize them in the prevailing terrain.
The Finnish troops did panic under extreme pressure with the best of them, they did get also killed and maimed with the best of them. But if you check out the figures of the Finns who surrendered you can see ours was not an army which surrendered unless the situation was hopeless and there was no way to get back to friendly lines. Escaping to fight another day was an option. Surrender only the last option. I think that among things that held the Finnish units together even when sustaining heavy casualties was devotion to your comrades and shame. Heavy casualties did not demoralize them, it gave them resolve. Shame would make them want to redeem themselves if they broke.
>When It's brought up 'ya but Finland
>lost'it gets turned around to, no Finland
>didn't, the Soviet's beggged for peace, or
>blameing the Germans, or Finland accepted
>the Soviet surrender rather then beat up
>any more poor Russians. Which begs the
>question why surrender then why not kick
>the Soviet's back to the Russia & restore
>the borders.
You assume our army was an army of aggression and that our politicians had no control over it. Our army's sole purpose was to buy time for the politicians and diplomats to do their jobs and bring about peace. And yes, we lost both wars. Butthe political and diplomatic outcome is more controversial than the simple win/lose options allow for. And it was not even a hands down military victory for the Soviets in any way. Even if they (along with the Germans) would like to have you believe. Which other army that lost in WWII was demobilized and did not surrender to the enemy while the country remained unoccupied ? Can't think of any but the Finnish army.
>As to Glantz I said this before why not
>contact him, enlighten him, to his errors,
>his old E-mail adress IIRC used to be
>Rzhev@ aol.com. he also used to frequent
>Val's site forums as well.
I have not seem him around there for a long time.
As for emailing him: I want to be sure the most blatant errors have been rectified in subsequent editions before I mail him. I think the errors were explained away in Val's forum with the remark that the book is about Soviet archives, not Finnish archives anyway.
But I trust you will spread the word about the errors whenever the book comes up in conversation.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeeves:
I guess you could split the squad, withdraw one half while providing cover fire with the other half, then swap roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That could work. Except the Widraw command is only accepted towards your base line (start edge of the map). If you need to pull back/disengage/widraw and you would want to go in another direction than your base line you are stuck with the regular commands that assume your frontage is ahead of the unit, not behind.
But hey, the Germans never retreated, they just turned and advanced the other way.
I agree, there is a need for a separate Disengage/Fall back command that allows pulling your units out of a tight spot in a controlled fashion before it becomes a rout and that it would allow other directions than your baseline.
-
Sounds much like a game I am currently playing. Pretty much the same set up. The LOS is crappy 20 meters due to night and heavy fog. I am attacking as Allied and I am using tactics that would appear to be similar to your opponents tactics. I checked your handle but it would appear I am not playing against you....
Anyways: if your defences have been rendered useless due to faulty deployment you have only yourself to blame. Basically.
You anticipated your opponent to use a route which he did not choose. Did you perceived that bit of terrain he used to push ahead to be dangerous ? If you did you should have deployed accordingly. If not then you are SOL.
Using terrain features to your advantage is not IMO gamey.
-
The analogy in full:
The British did not win the Battle of Britain as there was no Battle of Britain, it was merely a boundary dispute between neighbours. The Germans just wanted to secure their channel ports.
The Germans claim they had limited goals all a long and these limited goals were met without any undue difficulties. Lufwaffe losses were light.
Once these limited goals had been satisfactorily met the Luftwaffe discontinued all operations as per orders and ROE set by Hitler prior to Adler Tag.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:
Cause that's important part of our recent history. A bit like where Brits didn't really win the battle of britain, germans just didn't see the fight worthy of their attention.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said.
Damn. That is the analogy I was looking for.
-
>Why do you Finns have such a bee in your
>bonnet about this whole thing?
How would you feel if someone stated, on a solid autohority (for years and years), that William Wallace was an English hero ? Or that Horatio Nelson was hero of the French revolution. Or that Ulysses S. Grant was a hero of the Confederates ?
It is hard to find the correct analogy that would show how insultive the statements and factoids presented about our involvenemt in the conflict are.
Sometimes they are basically correct but they do not represent the whole truth. Sometimes they are totally wrong but they persist as axioms. The entire structure of truths, half-truths and lies around the matter would come crashing down if our side of the story was told.
It is easier to use oversimplifications like the statement "Finland was a Nazi Ally" than tell the entire story starting from the Winter War and how the French and the English governments promised help but that the promise was only words to counter the indignation caused by the fate of Tseckoslovakia and Poland. When we did not lose within the first few weeks they had to act on those words and they started setting up the expedition. That would have given them the iron ore of Sweden to boot. But the problem was we did not ask for any troops, only arms and munitions. The inevitable happened and as we could not count on the expedition to come all the way and indeed be able to fight the Red Army we sued for peace. That left the governments hanging and that resulted in their ultimate demise. But only after the Germans had taken Norway and yet again beaten them, this time not only in the political field but also in the battle field. After that we had very few choices as Molotov asked Hitler for a permission to complete the task they had to abandon because of the fear of coming to blows with the Western powers. Hitler saw an opportunity and said no. But he had blocked the arms shipments going through Germany so the Finnish leaders did not take the bait he offered. No formal treaties were signed. The only concrete "proof" of Finnish alliace is the radio speech Hitler made to announce the start of Barbarossa. He was trying to alianate us from the Western powers and they happily obliged in their rethorics, if not in actions, so that they could make their previous empty promises go away by showing to the public that we were evil after all when we had joined their mortal enemy. That is how we became "Nazi Allies". Oversimplification, omission and distortion.
After the war the various "definitive" histories proofread by the German generals set the pace. And they definitively had an agenda to explain away how their mighty army was soundly beaten by the seemingly inneffective army that could not squash the Finnish army. That is why our expoits, if you will, have been told by the Germans, not by us, in books written by historians like Ziemke. Now Glantz is continuing the trend, only from the Soviet side. And they too definitily have an agenda to explain away how their mighty army could beat the powerfull German army but how they could not squash the Finnish army.
All we want is our day in court so to speak.
It is like your actions are discussed on the coffee table but you are not asked about them at all. Instead the most "knowledgeable" persons heard on the subject happen to be a confidant of your ex and your worst enemy. They are heard as the autohorities that know intimately and accurately all about how you performed and why you acted the way you did. That is why nobody bothers to ask about it from you personally.
And that is what is bothering us (or at least me
) -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
And their it is in a nutshell
. Imagine that, We have 2 Countries with 2 difrent veiws of what happened in 1944. .....Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quite.
But which one is true/correct ? Should one accept one and dismiss the other only because the one you choose to accept is the one that has been presented using one sided or irrelevant (fruits of the poisoned tree) sources ? Why not take into account the testimony of one the participant at all ? Why rely only in the testimony of his embittered bed fellow or his embittered enemy when you are talking about his behaviour ? There must be a reason for this. I have my suspicions but lets leave it at that.
This is what has happend to us. No official Finnish statistics and bits of data have ever been used when our involvement in the war has been discussed outside Finland. For example only Molotovs minimum (~40 000) and Khrustsevs maximum (one million) loss figures for the Red Army during Winter War have been stated but I bet you have never seen the Finnish war time estimate of the Red Army losses.
These estimates made right after the Winter War were 200 000 Red Army KIA and 1 200 tanks KO'd.
The most recent "verified" KIA total is ~130 000 and the number of KO'd tanks is over 3 000. When you look at them without any biases as statistical figures you can only say that the original estimate was very accurate indeed. Statistically the error is so small that original estimate does remain valid, as an estimate.
It may seem like propaganda to claim that we lost 26 000 KIA and a few AFV's while we inflicted 200 000 KIA and took out 1 200 tanks. Now we can prove scientifically we sustained 26 000 KIA and a few tanks and inflicted ~130 000 KIA and took out over 1 200 tanks (total losses over 3 000 to all causes).
Look up the data. Draw your own conclusions. Do not believe all the revered historians like Glantz write.
Mannerheim was a hero of the Russian civil war my ass.
The data I used can be seen at:
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:
tero asked: “Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?”
Slapdragon said: “273.15 degrees.”
Here is why. If the thread gets the idea that 273.15 degrees F is equal to 0ºC instead of out of the ball park once in the lifetime temperature, then we are looking forward to a hundred threads that propose to make this or that temperature, or all temperatures more hot, or able to heat at much higher temperatures, and less likely to cool, etc.
People already tend to take the extremes in things like Kelvin and Celsius, Fahrenheit, personal bravery of thermometers, and hold them up as norms. Then when CM, which is based on norms and not extremes is played, they are dismayed when degrees Celsius kills a Degrees Fahrenheit, their air conditioners retreat in confusion, and their refrigerators bounces one off a ice cube tray. So when people hold up an extreme that is 5 degree hotter from the normal temperature of boiling water, it is important to disabuse people who will take this fact uncritically.
This is especially important since there would be a dozen threads following this one complaining about thermometers and calling May-Tag repairmen a bunch of satan worshipers and calling for the massive increase in a degrees Fahrenheit’s ability because "I read 0 degrees Celsius equals 273.15 degree Fahrenheit." Better to present the facts out right now rather than let it simmer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree in principle.
I do too have my doubts about using only May-Tag repairmen. But for a different reason. They are thought to be inherently superior and they are most certainly nationally biased. Furthermore their solution to the problem is not the only solution around, (even if may be the simplest one). I have no objections to their use in principle only because they choose to believe in things I personally do not believe in. I am not saying that may not be a significant factor but that is debateable.
-
>If ppl have problems with WTC's depiction of
>Finlands defeat, then why not contact Glantz
>etc & take it up with him?.
The damage is already done.
>As to Finlands action's in 1944 it all boils
>down to, who you choose to believe, Ie, the
>Soviet's claim very little trouble with the
>operation, & were even able to pull out
>their offensive forces, ahead of the
>timetable.
>
>The Finns according to Tero in his typical
>every Finn is uber fashion
claim to >have stopped them cold. Who to believe
.Please check the timeline before you believe the "true story" corraborated by Glantz using ONLY Soviet sources.
First Finnish peace feelers were sent out in the end of 1943.
The assault started June 10th, Viipuri fell June 20th, July 11th STAVKA ordered the forces in the Isthmus to deploy and dig in in defensive positions, the final assaults were beaten back in the Isthmus by July 18th and two Soviet divisions (289D and 176D) were encirceled and routed in Ilomantsi (north of lake Ladoga) in August 1st-9th effectively stopping the Soviet assault there. Cease fire in place September 4-5th, the Soviets fire 19 500 arty rounds during the last 24 hrs, just like they did when the Winter War ended (they say a last show of force, we say a childish tantrum). Peace treaty is signed September 19th.
The war ended pretty much along the same front lines as the Winter War had ended.
If our army was totally beaten and we were desperately begging for peace wouldn't you think there would have been less of these wide gaps of several weeks (up to a month) between the events in the time line ?
We had sustained serious casualties and were looking for a way out of the war. We were out of breath but we had not been totally beaten. Luckily for us Stalin had bigger fish to catch and fry so he could be "magnanimous" with us. But only because he could not spare the troops for the occupation and the querilla war that would have ensued.
Our army did not surrender to the enemy, it was demobilized. Helsinki was one of the three warring European capitals (the others were London and Moscow) which were not occupied by a foreign power during or after the war.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Saint Tero......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry Slap, if you are not a formal representative of the Vatican your nomination will not be official.
And I think I will be required to perform 3 miracles after I am dead anyway to qualify. You will NOT get rid of me that easy...
-
>Glantz... tero. Glantz... tero.
>
>That's a toughie. I'll have to think about
>this for a while when I get home
Do not take my word for it. Look the stuff I claim up for yourselves. Glantz uses Soviet sources, I use Finnish sources. Glantz is giving a myopic view of the events. So am I. The only difference is his view is in sync with the established version the Western historians have cited since the end of the war. And that established version has little to do with the actual events.
Most of the data I use is readily available on the net in English, his is not.
I have said it before it is not canonized. Yet. I am also under the impression neither is Glantz's. Yet.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>I think the basis for those arguments were
>on totally different perspectives.
>If someone's former knowledge of the
>Russo-Finnish wars are mainly based on
>Soviet and other NON-Finnish sources, then
>of course, the information from Finnish POV
>may sound like übertruppen propaganda.
BE WARE OF Glantz.
I purchased the book When Titans Clashed the other day and according to it Mannerheim was a hero of the Russian Civil War.
WTF !!! Who does proof reading for him ??? :mad:
Also the rest of the data on the Finnish front seems a bit iffy and is almost totally based on Soviet -60's era sources (the only Finnish source is Enge/Paananen's Winter War, a perfect choice I'm sure... NOT).
Among the jewels is the statement that the Finns "neglected" to attack Leningrad.
The summer of 1944 assault went (for intents and purposes) "Stalin decided by mid 1944 to bring the matter to an end. The assault started June 10th and bada bing, bada bum, the Finns surrendered in September". The fact that they massed 10 000 guns and mortars is mentioned but the line from A to B is very straightforward. I better stop now before I burst a vein... :mad:
>Still that in itself doesn't necessarily
>make it false.
The Germans poisoned the well with their sour grapes and now that the data is becomming available on the net it is hard to weed out the misconceptions and lies that have been spread over the years. Our army stopped and survived the 1944 style Red Army assault but the Germans say that the Finnish defences failed because they were not built according to the German instructions. The attack did breach the initial defensive positions but the rate of advance of the Red Army was far
below the average in the Isthmus than it was against the Germans. And the attack got stopped, they did not cease attacking on their own.
>And then again, sometimes Tero seems to be
>throwing "hot potatoes" on the forum
I do try to make sure the potatoes are edible as I may have to take a bite at them myself. Many of them have been deflected but very few have been squashed as false.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>How the hell do you survive a frontal shot
>between the eyes without being
>ubertruppen?
With luck.
I think it is even modelled in CM.
-
>Now Tero…don’t gloat too much on the -273
>thing,
It was, I think, a honest typo but I could not let that one slide. Too juicy...
>you were after all out to lunch on
>the tiff with Username.
And what a good lunch it was. I take my steak rare, mad cow disease or not. :cool:
>Terro said: -40F is -8C. Right
Who the hell is Terro ?
>…or did you intend that as a joke. Algebra
>is after all an enigma to some folks.
It was meant as a joke. These things have little to do with algebra and all to do with your frame of reference.
When you are metric and use Celsius scale it is damned hard to follow and remember what is being referred to if you juts read "speed limit 30" (which is VERY slow in kmh) and "temperatures falling down to the low 20's" (nice and warm in C).
When I was driving in the UK a few years ago it was hard to talk to people when they asked about the gas mileage of our rental. They expected miles per gallon and I am used to giving it as liter per 100 kilometers.
-
>Its 32 degrees F. Its no riddle. Its a
>plug into the equation.
Yes. And 0ºF is -17,7777777777777ºC
These conversions are SUCH fun
You get in all kinds of jams if you forget to mention if it is -60F (-51,1111C) or -60C (-76F). Not to mention the other measurements.
>By the way, Kelvin is usually NOT expressed
>in degrees Kelvin. Its XXX Kelvin.
Sorry about that. ALT+0186 is just so convenient way to write the degree sing.
>I also believe your statement, whether its
>meant to be factual or another goofy joke,
>is incorrect.
About the US MG-42 clone ? That is I'm afraid a cold fact. Look it up.
>Americans might be touchy but maybe you can
>enlighten us to as to the great
>mathemeticians from your country?
Well now.... How many great American mathematicians have been or are actually American ?
This subject is not worth the piss that it would take to hold the pissing contest so lets reserve that for some other, more worthy subject.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>273.15 degrees.
That is the Celsius figure for the absolute freezing point (0º Kelvin), right ? If you mean -273,15º
>Seriously, I can imagine how hard it is to
>convert tools from one measure and
>another.
We use an American/British system installed by the French which uses mixed sets of nuts and bolts. We have to have two separate sets of tools and you always have the wrong set at hand...
>That is why I find it interesting to read
>someone who is Finnish and someone who is
>Russian communicating in English on the
>list then both having to deal with a US and
>our odd measurement system (actually, the
>brits gave it to us).
50cal = 12,7mm, 6prd = 57mm..... you just have to learn them by heart...
-
>Why do I have the feeling this is going to
>devoolve to the same line of arguments
>between Tero and the rest of the world
>(regarding his thoughts on why Finnish
>soldiers were übertruppen)?
There is NO base for arguments here. The most successfull sniper in history, Simo Häyhä, is Finnish after all. He racked the most confirmed kills of all the WWII snipers, propably even of all the snipers in history. And the Red Army did start the sniper program after their experiences with Finnish snipers (not just Simo mind you) during the Winter War. That being the case I really must point out that not only the Red Army snipers deserve special bonuses.
What is there to debate ?
>Just wondering.
Have no fear. The Finnish troops respected the Soviet snipers very much. There was this one sniper who always killed with a shot between the eyes. His undoing was the fact that he was TOO accurate. He shot a prowling HMG gunner between the eyes who survived the shot and hosed the sniper with his Maxim. He never moved when the fire was approaching his position. That is how cool he was.
Mind you, the Finnish soldiers respected the Red Army soldiers as individual fighters.
-
>No...
>-40F is -40C right? Yes right, as in
>correct. You should also cite a formula.
>
>You are being the funny man poking the good
>fun at the silly americans, no?
>Well, actually you arent.
I've done my share of inch to mm conversions so I know the difficulties involved.
Boy, you Americans ARE sensitive. :cool:
>Get your numbers right next time funnyman.
Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?
-
>I think there is a lot of truth in this,
>however, I don't agree 100%. The ability to
>see shot fall clearly for bracketing cannot
>be forgotten.
Agreed. But I think that it can be said that below a certain distance the quality does not count as the gunner would KNOW he is going to hit the target no matter what as long as the target is in the sights.
The typical engagement distances for the Finnish tanks during the summer of 1944 were between 15 and 700 meters. I think it can be assumed that at 15 meters the quality of the sights are of no consequence.
>Very true, and I wish something would be
>done to the game to make motionless
>vehicles sitting in trees not so easy to
>spot as they are now.
Better include also the bunkers and pillboxes to that list. At least.
-
>The platform (trailing legs/gun
>mount/wheels) or vehicle mass/mounting has
>a big effect on repeatability also. If the
>gun does not return to a previous
>state/angle, then closing the loop is again
>inhibited.
That is why the Germans disliked the 75mm PAK made by mating the French 75 gun with a PAK 38 undercarriage. When firing AP shots the recoil was so great it would even brake the undercarriage. They called it the Mule. In Finnish use the use of AP shot was not encouraged as the HEAT round was only marginally poorer while the recoil was far less violent.
>Personally, I think AFV mounted weapons
>have an edge.
IRL it is far easier to conceal a non-AFV mounted gun. That is not just modelled in CM properly as it is.
>Theys should be more stable mounts and the
>commanders addional optics help also.
Agree with the commander spotting, but I'd say that would be because of the higher position of the commander (generally) in relation to the gunners view.
>Too many civvies focus on the tube. Its
>big and long and excites them. Muzzle
>velocitys are impressive and easily
>understood.
Try telling them size does not matter in every case.
>But gun systems have to be taken as a whole
>and the optics are part of the package.
>The gunner makes all the difference in the
>world and fudging should focus on him
>mostly.
Not always. A newbie gunner with great optics CAN perform better than an old hand with crappy optics. It is just a matter of how crappy the optics are compared to the great optics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better Sharpshooters for the Soviets?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
>The Finnish bonus has always been simple.
>Play Elite troops on defense against a horde
>of Ruskie dumbells.
I am willing to admit that that would work for the Winter War. But what about later in the war when you play Elite Finns against Veteran or Elite Ruskie hordes ?
>Tactics is not really an issue of the TacAI
>except in one player play, and play testing
>will reveal if there is a need to tweek it
>for Finnish units.
Tactics is an issue when it comes to automated TacAI responces. Yes, there should be a certain amount of unpredictability in the responces. But there should also be a certain amount of predictability that is based on the differences in tactical and doctrinal training in each army.
This issue revols around the Finns too much.
I see nobody trying to point out that the differences in the Red Army and German training, tactics and doctrine did not differ significantly to warrant a TacAI that works both forces in exactly the same way. These differences are taken for granted.
Experience levels apply only so far. They matter in things like responce time, aiming accuracy under fire etc. What about the trainig of tank drivers and how they correlate with their experience level and vehicle they are driving for example when they are traversing rocky terrain (narrow vs wider tracks, ground pressur etc) ? Or how does the experience level of the TC correlate with the vehicle he is commanding ? Should a a Veteran German be more Veteran than a Veteran Russian or are they really equal in every respect, when it comes to TacAI ?
>Other tactics is provided by the player, no
>coding needed.
Yes. Provided the player is given a decent set of commands and he can expect the TacAI to try and carry them out as well as it can.
It is only when something unexpected happens the TacAI responces should be based on national differences based on training, tactics and doctrine. It is not the orders issuing phase that is in question here, that is up to the player. It is the 60sec execution phase that concerns me. The CM game engine is too frontal attack oriented to model Finnish infiltration attack and defensive tactics as is.