Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
>I'm sure everyone replying also means
>'congratulations, well done, fantastic' but
>without a single quibble in the world you
>guys deserve a major mention in despatches
>for the quality of your achievements.
>Well done.
I was saving that to the occasion when the final product is released. No disrespect intended.
That Finnish language exchange or ours was just HORSE play
BTW: I am still expecting Steve to answer my questions.
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>I do not want to be a spoil-sport, but you
>are very welcome to give a translation to
>that
Finnish for foreigners 101
---------------------------
>Unless you wonder about Sergei and his
>handle: Sergei is the name we Finns gave to
>the post war Soviet twin barreled 23mm AA
>gun.
Niille, jotka ihmettelevät Sergein käyttäjätunnusta: Sergei on nimi, joka annettiin Suomessa Neuvostoliittolaiselle kaksipiippuiselle 23mm IT tykille.
>>Luultavammin vain yrittävät minimoida
>>työtaakkaansa.
Most propably they are trying to minimize their work load.
>Älä !
No ****.
>>Pelisarjassa on tulossa vielä Välimeri
>>(Kreikka, Afrikka, Italia) sekä Varhainen >>sota, joista toiseen (arvaa!) veikkaisin
>>myös talvisodan sopivan.
Upcoming version include the Med (Greece, Africa, Italy) and Early War. I bet one of these (quess which one!) will be appropriate for Winter War.
>Öööööö
Ehhhhhhhh
>Ottaen huomioon, että joidenkin WWII
>time-line tietojen mukaan (mukana myös
>joitakin USA College kotisivuja) Winter War
>ei koskaan tapahtunutkaan. Attack on Poland
>jälkeen tulee tietysti Weserübung ja heti
>kohta perään The Invation of France and the
>Low Countries. Siinä välillä ei tapahtunut
>juuri mitää sotahistoriallisesti
>merkitävää....
When you take into account the fact that according to some WWII timelines (among which are several USA College web sites) Winter War never took place. After the Attack on Poland came Weserübung and soon after that the Invasion of France and the Low Countries took place. Nothing of military historical importance did take place in between.
>>Ota huomioon, että eihän CM kakkoseen
>>sisälly myöskään Puolan sotaa, vaikka se
>>itärintamaan sisältyykin.
After all CM2 does not include the Polish campaign, eventhough it is a part of the events in the Eastern Front.
>Jos näin on niin sittenhän CM2:een ei tule
>myös Puolalaisia joukkoja. Roight ?
All things being equal there will not be any Polish troops in CM2. Mittee ?
>>Siis CM2 = 1941-1945, CM4 = 1939-1940...
So, CM2 = 1941-1945, CM4 = 1939-1940...
>CM4=Pacific, jos vanhat merkit paikkansa
>pitää. Pacific Lobby on sen verran vahva,
>että sen yli taida päästä.
CM4=Pacific, if the pattern holds. The Pacific lobby is so strong (on the account of being an American one; translators note) that it will be hard to overcome.
>>Joka tapauksessa, minusta on vain HYVÄ
>>asia, jos talvisota on vasta CM4:ssä.
>>Miksikö? Siksi, että uudistettu engine
>>tulee vasta sen jälkeen, ja senhän luvataan
>>sallivan mm.useamman kuin kahden pelaajan
>>moninpelin!
Even so I (Sergei) feel it is a GOOD thing that Winter War will be only in CM4 Why ? Because the totally improved game engine will come after CM2 and that is promised to accomodate such features as more than two player multi player games.
>>Lisäksi meillä on enemmän aikaa lobata
>>hevoset mukaan...
Furthermore we have time to lobby the inclusion of horses.
>Hevosvetoinen tykistö ei kuuna kullan
>valkeana taistellut etulinjassa. Joidenkin
>lähteiden mukaan.
Horsedrawn artillery did not take part in front line fighting. According to some sources.
>>Jos kirjoitan tähän Steven nimen, hän
>>varmasti häkeltyy.
If I write Steves name here he will surely be confused
>Lisätään tähän vielä BTS ja jotain muuta
>höpinää ja sen jälkeen muutama $$$$ merkki
>niin eiköhän saada tämäkin aihe lukittua.
I'll include BTS and after some blabber a few $$$$ signs so we will get this tread locked in no time.
>>The parameters of Royal Swedish Army in
>>1960's, of course...
60-luvun Kuninkaallisen Ruotsin armeijan parameterilla tietysti.
>Are you sure about that ?
Oletko ihan varma ?
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Unless you wonder about Sergei and his handle: Sergei is the name we Finns gave to the post war Soviet twin barreled 23mm AA gun.
>Luultavammin vain yrittävät minimoida
>työtaakkaansa.
Älä !
>Pelisarjassa on tulossa vielä Välimeri
>(Kreikka, Afrikka, Italia) sekä Varhainen
>sota, joista toiseen (arvaa!) veikkaisin
>myös talvisodan sopivan.
Öööööö
Ottaen huomioon, että joidenkin WWII time-line tietojen mukaan (mukana myös joitakin USA College kotisivuja) Winter War ei koskaan tapahtunutkaan. Attack on Poland jälkeen tulee tietysti Weserübung ja heti kohta perään The Invation of France and the Low Countries. Siinä välillä ei tapahtunut juuri mitää sotahistoriallisesti merkitävää....
>Ota huomioon, että eihän CM kakkoseen
>sisälly myöskään Puolan sotaa, vaikka se
>itärintamaan sisältyykin.
Jos näin on niin sittenhän CM2:een ei tule myös Puolalaisia joukkoja. Roight ?
>Siis CM2 = 1941-1945, CM4 = 1939-1940...
CM4=Pacific, jos vanhat merkit paikkansa pitää. Pacific Lobby on sen verran vahva, että sen yli taida päästä.
>Joka tapauksessa, minusta on vain HYVÄ asia,
>jos talvisota on vasta CM4:ssä. Miksikö?
>Siksi, että uudistettu engine tulee vasta
>sen jälkeen, ja senhän luvataan sallivan mm.
>useamman kuin kahden pelaajan moninpelin!
>Lisäksi meillä on enemmän aikaa lobata
>hevoset mukaan...
Hevosvetoinen tykistö ei kuuna kullan valkeana taistellut etulinjassa. Joidenkin lähteiden mukaan.
>Jos kirjoitan tähän Steven nimen, hän
>varmasti häkeltyy.
Lisätään tähän vielä BTS ja jotain muuta höpinää ja sen jälkeen muutama $$$$ merkki niin eiköhän saada tämäkin aihe lukittua.
>The parameters of Royal Swedish Army in
>1960's, of course...
Are you sure about that ?
-
>BTS is already going out on a limb trying to
>depict the entire Axis-Soviet conflict in
>one game. While the fighting in the west
>44-45 definitely evolved it was nowhere near
>as changing as the situation in the East.
Agreed. It must be a monumental task to find a yardstick that applies to all models of all the weapons systems that were used. Coding wise that is.
>Environmental, technical and doctrinal
>changes where monumental and almost every
>year, and front brought a unique set of
>circumstances.
Yes. The game engine has to be able to handle desert terrain and dust as well as boggy terrian and snow.
>If anything the Winter War would risk being
>unfairly treated should BTS over extend
>themselves.
That is what I am asking BTS about, actually.
>Personally I think the CM engine can cope
>and with the additional experience from CM2
>and further tweaking and improvements I’d
>bet on it
No contest there.
-
>1. That CM2 will cover the Winter War. It
>will not and we never intended it to. One
>bite too many for us to chew I am sorry to
>say
Damn !
I have read before that Winter War is habitually left out of games because the parameters of the game engine do not fit the Winter War scope of fighting, both in odds and in the final outcome (for example the conventional AT capabilities of the Finnish army did not warrant the 1 200 tanks the Red Army lost in combat).
In other words Winter War throws a monkey wrech into the game engine. Is this what happened here too ?
I take it Finns will still be included in the game. What will be the parameters you use to model the Finnish army ?
-
>AFAIK it's common to keep all bits of
>paperwork generated by governements - even
>if not adopted as policy they are still part
>of the officila record, and can indicate
>what options were considered along the way
>to the final decision.
Ah !
What makes you think it was an actively made "final decision" ? I think it has been proven that Stalin had to repeatedly resort to a hastily prepared Plan B when he went against the Finns after Plan A had backfired or simply failed to fulfill the original set of goals.
>I'm not saying that the Sov's did NOT want
>complete conquest of Finland at soem
>stage......just that a DRAFT document does
>not support the viewpoint that they
>definitely did want to do so.
Please do a search on the net (for example Yahoo) using the term "Terijoki government". Compare the time line of that organ with the timeline of Winter War and how it affected the Soviet diplomatic behaviour during Winter War. Then come back and state what they definitely wanted to do with the Finns. And why that desire was never materialized in subsequent histories.
-
>Hmm...
>- great source of factual information you
>picked!
Can you point out any actual factual mistakes on the information presented on that site ?
>Stalin's USSR was a tyranny, no doubt. But
>after, as you say, "submerging" in such
>sites as you posted, one surfaces totally
>misguided and covered in crap.
Granted, it is not the most politically correct of sites. But you have to look at the facts they use in their argumentation, not only the rethorics.
BTW:
>Originally posted by Skipper:
>Stalin and USSR in general were not
>notorious for breaking treaties. Not that
>their track record was perfectly clean
>(whose was?), but it was one of the best.
Nice try to deflect the rather effectivce rebuttal to your statement.
Care to comment on that aspect of his reply to your statement ?
-
>Can you elaborate on what you mean? I have
>seen only one reference to an experimental
>20mm Vorpanzer homogeneous plate considered
>for the turret front of the F2. Are you
>saying this was actually implemented in
>production versions of the F,G,H and J
>models? How did the front suspension of the
>MKIV perform with this extra weight of this
>additional plate?
>
>hmmmm....?
Quite.
I had two ideas brewing in my head, spaced armour effect of the mantlet+gun shield and/or the Vorpanzer a la PzKw-III and armour/AP shot quality. I posted the original version before checked out the ACTUAL layout of the production vehicle, which indeed does not include the Vorpanzer. I tried to take the foot out of my mouth but you beat me to it.
-
The SP value might allow for better armour plate quality/inferior enemy AP shot quality. I forget if in the SP the Soviet AP shots for example were penalized or the German was armour slightly overrated for statistical purposes.
[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>Well haven't I talked up a storm!!
You found a sweet spot we Finns love to rub.
>Well for starters a DRAFT copy is obviously
>somethign that is considered - and then NOT
>adopted - or it wouldn't be DRAFT.
If it was a mere draft why was it kept in the archives and not disposed of ?
>Whether or not it was public is irrelevant -
>many official documents are not public. So
>what?
I think the matter is so delicate because the Soviets consistently deny any and all allegations their intention was to occupy the entire country. They were just grabing some buffer zone around Leningrad and securing the passage through the Gulf of Finland for the Baltic Fleet. Roight ?
Among other concrete peices of evidence there are the marching orders which were captured. And other conclusive evidence has been found. And still the Soviets maintained their position that they were only after the buffer zone. The Terijoki government is one fact you seldom see in English language histories.
Since the matter is so flammable for the Western historians it has been written off using the Soviet version, for example in the ensyclopdias. Why has the Finnish point of view been suppressed ? (I am asking this from the scholarly point of view.) Could it be that since the Winter War brought about the fall of the French and the British governments it has been easier to label us with the label "Nazi ally" and gathegorically use only either captured German documents or the Soviet version and not ask about the matter from our point of view when it comes to subsequent events. The German sources, which are usually consulted when the Finnish involvement is discussed can be said to contain more than a fair share of sour grapes.
And I agree it was preposterous of us to have claimed 200 000 Soviet KIA and 1 200 KO'd tanks for the loss of some 25 000 KIA of our own right after the Winter War. Only recent findings from the Soviet archives put that number of Soviet KIA at (at least) 130 000 and over 3 000 tanks lost to all causes, of which some 1 200 were lost in combat. How do you like them apples.
>Had the document ever reflected actual Sov
>policy, public or not, then it would not
>have been draft.
But would it have been kept in the archive if it was based on idle talk ? And the Finnish army did have a say in the matter and Stalin had to be able so save face, again, by altering the demand for unconditional surrender. I trust you are aware the Soviet attack got blunted in July '44 while the armistice was signed in September '44. Why the 60+ days between the two dates if the Soviet assault was a resounding success and it had met all its objectives as planned ?
>BTW despite the name I am not an apologist
>for hte Sov's........but nor am I going to
>sit here and watch people talk up something
>into a solid fact without any actual
>evidence.
The evidence is there. But since very few Western historian has been the least bit interested in the subject to come and dig through the Finnish arcives it is only accessible to us Finns. Which is a pitty.
If you have read Glanzt please check his list of sources. There are no Finnish sources mentioned even though he has gone through some events that involve the Finns. He has used only German and Soviet/Russian sources. Why do you think that is so ? There are a few Finns around who can translate well enough so that such revered historians like Glantz can gain access to the Finnish archives.
[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>Err...since when did "draft" copies of
>anything become the oficial version and
>public policy?
Since when did the Soviet intentions when it came to Finland in the beginning and in the end match ? They were very "flexible" in the way in which they could change the objectives in mid-sentence.
Was it really a draft or a version that was discarded when a new one was needed to reflect the prevailing situation.
>I'd be surprised if the USSR had NOT
>considered complete conquest of
>Finland as an objective, along with several
>others possibilities.
Agreed. But don't you find it odd they only admit to having "limited objectives" which were met in full. No more, no less. That kind of consistency just is not possible. Unless you alter your story every step of the way so that you can in the end say "That was my intention all along".
>To say that a draft document proves that
>that's what was actually intended is
>nonsense (IMO of course!).
Lets look at the other way: can you prove it does NOT reflect their actual, original, intentions ?
[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>There were exactly two 20mm ATRs in use
>during Winter War. Not two types of, or not
>even two per some organizational unit, but
>two as the grand total available weapons.
>They were prototypes that were field-tested
>in the early part of the war, and then used
>in battle until they were lost. However, I
>don't have any idea for how long they
>lasted.
Until the end of the war for all I can tell. You can find the info in Marskin panssarintuhoajat, but they are not tabulated with the other ATR's. I looked it up when we went around this block the last time. IIRC there were some 7 20mm Lahti ATR's available in June/July 1940.
>There was also a prototype of 13mm AT MG.
>It was just as effective as it sounds (or
>given the success of .50" against light
>armor in CMBO, even less effective than it
>sounds). As far as I know, it was used in
>battle exactly once, when its gunner fired
>at close range (or that was what he said)
>to the thin flank armor of a BT (either 5
>or 7) without any visible effect at all.
>The project was scrapped after that.
Missed that one in the Marskin panssarintuhoajat. I have to read it through. Again.
>A number of 14 mm Boys ATRs arrived Finland
>in the late part of the war, but I'm not
>certain if any reached the front in time.
Apparently they did reach the front in January but too little, too late. And too weak to boot.
-
>They actually didn't - I am corrected. First
>stage went according to the plan, second
>went wrong.
I think the rate of success adcheived depends which set of objectives you use, the ones set before the attack or the ones set after the attack had stalled.
>One thing demonstrated by 1940 was that RKKA
>formations badly lacked mobility. Ie, there
>were fast tanks, but there weren't any means
>to haul infantry, artillery and supplies
>around with the same speed.
True to some extent. But I think the main cause was the fact that the exploitation phase failed because the tanks could go as far as they could but without infantry escort they fell back (or were taken out) when it got dark. The day light lasted for about 6 hrs or less at worst (9AM -3PM). Winter War demonstrated acutely that a tank without infantry escort is a dead tank driving. Even against an adversary armed with sticks and stones.
>And you can't put an infantry squad on a
>T-26 or a BT-5 as riders - those were too
>light for that.
They did develop armoured sledges which the tanks hauled behind them. Their effect is debatable.
-
Has anybody done a MOD for the German uniform that would turn the German winter uniform into the American rain coat seen on many photos of the Ardennes campaign ?
A similar Ardennes MOD for the German AFV crew with leather coveralls/jackets would be nice.
-
>1) Before winter war Finns started to build
>a huge defense line with long range guns -
>Soviets thought it was a threat to them.
Where DO you get this kind of info. Take look at
and
Yes, a Russian site on the breaching of the defensive line.
Firstly, there were no guns in the Finnish inventory that could have reached Leningrad from the border, let alone from further inside the Finnish territory.
Secondly, the defensive line was constructed quite far from the border.
>I think KV2 was built partially to breach
>such defenses.
Could be.
>2) I think Alan Clark wrote that Finns (&
>german units attached) had 2:1 advantage
>over Soviets in the 1941 - but Finns failed
>to achieve their objectives.
What ? What were these objectives they failed to adcheive ?
The Finnish army did adcheive the objectives set down by the Finnish High Command.
>Thus they were no super-soldiers. (And 3:2
>in 1942)
Nobody says they were. But they did outfight the Red Army repeatedly.
>3) My friends Grandfather fought in
>WinterWar on Soviet side. He said they had
>idiots for commanders. They were forced to
>attack the bunkers through the half frozen
>lake and most of them died.
Drowned ? Exposure ? Shot ? If the lake was half frozen they could not have gone over it and survive without proper shelter.
>At night 10 of them walked around the lake
>and took out all of the defenders easily.
>(they were acticting on their own - had no
>such orders)
Where and when did this take place ?
>5) As a part of peace with Soviets Finns had
>to expell all German troops and stop sending
>supplies to Germany. There were battles
>between German troops and Finn troops in
>1944
Concur
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:
By the way, OB of the Soviet 26th Army included separate ski brigade. That's somewhat less than a division, but more than a regiment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Care to mention how the ski brigade ended up ?
I assume you mean the brigade which ir referred to as the Dolinin Brigade in Finnish sources.
[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>That war was not for or against communism.
>Hence, the "sides" were not communist and
>anti-communist.
>
>Now, in the context of eatsren front, there
>were (1) soviet partisans and (2) other
>anti-nazy partisans (Yugoslavia, Slovakia,
>Poland, etc, etc, etc).
What about the Ukrainian nationalist partisans who fought both the Germans and the Soviets ? And the Polish Home Army which was run from London and crushed while the Soviets stood by across the river ?
>Of the second category, there were normally
>separate factions aligned with USSR and with
>UK.
>
>Anti-soviet partisans were virtually
>non-existant (ie, there were, but
>incomparably smaller numbers).
Really ? Can you quote the source which gives the numbers ?
-
>didn't the finns have a superlative antitank
>rifle?
Yes. The 20mm Lahti. But it did not reach mass production until the Winter War was over.
>also, i hope cm2 will model those 'gentle
>ben' fan-driven snow vehicles.
Those would constitute a certain "gamey recon" vehicle.
-
>I'm sure in various sissi-operations
>fighting occurred also on skis, but I've
>never heard about a larger scale assault on
>skis, maybe you know better?
Depends what you call larger scale. For example the Raate road battles were fought on skis for the large part. They could not have cut the roads to form the pockets by rushing from the forest on foot. That was done as well but the initial rushes were made on skiis to overpower the defenders in the darkness in the prechosen spot.
>I have thought that the "normal" way of
>doing things was:
>1. ski close to the enemy 2. leave the skis
>against the tree 3. sneak to shooting
>position and kill the ruskies 4. sneak back
>and get on skis 5. 1-4 again... but maybe
>I'm wrong?
Not entirely. The procedure is entirely dependent on the circumstances. What you descibe is the SOP when you are harrasing the enemy during the day. During the night you would go all the way on skiis and fade away when you have expended your ammo and caused enough havoc. When you are attacking the enemy positions with the purpose of taking the positions you would get as near as possible on skiis and then make the final rush, on skiis if feasible, on foot if necessary.
Mind you, as you propably already know, massed frontal assaults during the day were not in the Finnish agenda unless it was absolutely imperative to do it.
-
>I'd like to see those Finnish ski infantry
>try skiing uphill while my T-34/85 tank
>opens up on them with its 85 mm main gun.
I'd like to see that T-34/85 get up that same hill to reach the position.
What makes you think they would be skiing in the open, in full view of the enemy during an attack ?
-
>The Soviets failed in the '44 invasion
>because they were still busy with a bigger
>enemy, Germany. If the Soviet Army was freed
>of its burden, or if Stalin decided he
>wanted Finnish land, he would have had his
>generals stage a real attack.
It was a real attack. But again, as with Winter War, the goals were set so too far. And the performace of the enemy was discounted. Stalin counted on the improved performance of the Red Army to do what the seemingly bad Red Army performace failed to do. He did not count on the Finnish defence abilities to having gotten proportionately better as well.
>2) Let's not forget that these tanks had
>thin armor, easily penetrated by hidden AT
>Rifle and AT gun teams which had that
>wooden terrain I mentioned previously
>available to them.
Unfortunately there were only 2 (two) 37mm AT guns per regiment and no AT rifles to speak of. The domestic 20mm ATR came too late and the ones that we received during Winter War were too few and too weak. Hence such prevailing AT measures like Molotovs Coctails, satchel charges, smoke grenades, logs and what not.
>The supposed Arty would have to be so
>inacurate and slow to retarget, it would not
>be useful other then in a preliminary
>bombardment role.
For the Red Army, yes. The Finnish arty was fast to retarget but was so starved of ammunition they could fire 10 rounds per DAY per gun at times to conserve the ammo for the really tight spots.
>To demonstrate again in CM turns, buy a
>conscript spotter and see how long it takes
>you to bring fire to something.
To some extent, yes.
>By the time the shells are dropping the
>intended target is long gone.
Unless it is dug in during an assault.
>3) When Finns launched their of '41, the
>Soviet Army was still in a state of
>disrepair. It's a miracle it was even able
>to survive long enough to be rebuilt,
>restocked, and retrained.
They had the space to trade for time.
-
>I wonder how the ski-troops will be modelled
>in CM2, if at all. To my understandin ski's
>are in most respects equivalent to bicycles
>in summer, they were used in moving from
>place A to B, not in fighting and certainly
>never in assaults (you need both hands in
>cross-country skiing if you want any speed).
Sorry to disappoint you. They WERE used in fighting and certainly quite often in assaults. The Finnish could not, contrary to popular beliefs, walk over the waist deep snow that the Red Army soldiers had to slug through.
As to fighting on skis: ever wondered why the histories and legends speak about Finnish ski troops armed with Suomi SMG's (the one that was the inspiration for the PPSh) and not the Mosin-Nagant rifle ? Could it be that the Suomi SMG was designed for such a use in mind; compact and easy to carry (for use in closed confines of the forest), high rate of fire (to emphasize the shock effect and maximize damage), 70 round drum magazine (to last you a lifetime of the few seconds of combat). You can certainly use the rifle as well when skiing but the SMG was bettersuited to the tactics.
>BTS have clearly stated that there will be
>no bicycles or motorbikes and I would
>imagine the same will apply to skis.
It should not apply to skis. The skis were most certainly used in the CM/CM2 scope of combat.
-
>I believe the Finn's reluctance to advance
>too far from their own border in '41 - '43
>led to the Soviets going easy on them in
>'44.
Well..... you are correct in essence.
Our army did advance quite far into the Soviet Karelia north of the lake Ladoga. But Mannerheim absolutely and cathegorically refused to take any action against Leningrad. And that did save our butt from being Russificated.
>"No harm, no foul", as they say...
Stalin had miscalculated and shot himself in the foot during and after Winter War when he thought the Finns would automatically allow Germans to use Finnish soil to attack Leningrad. He attacked and the Red Army performance during Winter War was one of the most crusial factors that made Hitler decide he could take on the USSR. Stalin had made sure we could only choose Germany in the upcoming event by antagonistic diplomacy after Winter War.
In short: it was a selfinflicted harm brough on by a selfcomitted foul.
-
>The basic difference here is that in WWII
>the Soviet Army had a big head of steam
>behind it and blood in their eyes, although
>I doubt they had it half as bad for the
>Finns than they did for the Germans.
Propaganda does wonders. While they may not have had it as bad they still did attack us unprovoked. One noteworthy point: they did NOT surrender in droves when encircled during Winter War like they did when the Germans attacked them in 1941. They rather died in place than surrender. Even if they were on foreign soil wageing a war of aggression.
>In Afghanistan there was little of the
>patriotic furor, but I do not at all
>discount the Finns' ability to defend their
>homeland.
For all the differences in the circumstances the Soviets/Russians still discounted the ability of the Finns, the Afgans and the Chechens to defend their homeland.
>At least they had the common sense not to
>take the war too far past their own borders,
Well, that is the ultimate question. There has been debating going on as to what the Soviets considered their "own borders". Finland had been a part of the Imperial Russia so the Western border of Finland had been the western border of the Imperial Russia in this region. I have read comments from Russian writers who say in effect the area was donated by Lenin under duress and should have been restored to the rule of the Soviets/Russians later on.
Arghhhh Fighter\Bombers + other wierd happenings
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
>I think the reason why the German plane is
>so expensive is because of the Allied air
>power. Or because the at that time there
>weren't many German fighter-bomber around.
But CM does NOT (or is supposed not to anyway) model rarity, only combat effectiveness. Roight ?
>It seemed funny that a plane can spot 2 men
>in some woods hiding.
There are several recorded incidents where a lone, single Finnish soldiers were strafed by fighters or bombed by entire formations of medium bombers during Winter War.