CavScout

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: You said "If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes." And the MANUAL for the professional soldier says exactly this but you discount it because it calls for armored cars instead (nowhere does it mention the vehicle type, only the overwatch is required and dismounted infantry should be used when when at all possible if time and terrain permits)? I'll go get you the salt.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea where he got "armored cars" from. Scout platoons that the manual is written for may contain either M3s or HMMWVs. The majority of battalion level scouts use HMMWVs. Once the area has been cleared using visual means and/or dismounts, the scouts move across it. They use bounding overwatch because of the likelihood of enemy contact. If the open area is very large, the overwatch vehicle should only remain stationary until the bounding vehicle has moved a distance equal to half the effective range of the overwatching vehicle’s weapon system. When that point is reached, the overwatch vehicle must move out, even if the bounding vehicle has not yet reached a position of cover and concealment. The bounding vehicle MAY be moving at high speed but would do so while under overwatch. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon! What we (or at least I ) are talking about is racing through dangerous and possibly enemy-controlled territory in order to determine what is there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And here is your "fatal flaw". One would not determine enemy presence by racing through an area. In fact, racing through an area in RL is likely not to "confirm or deny" anything about the enemy. It is only because the game engine causes units to fire on "recon" units that such a "tactic" works. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But there IS a question of definition. If it turns out that there are no nearby enemy units and it is not a kill zone, would that make it OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No because the method is not something that would realisticaly used on the battlefield. Hell, recon used SLOW down when enemy contact is likely using things such as boudning overwatch. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From <u>FM 17-98 SCOUT PLATOON</u> Chapter 8 Basic Scout Skills, Open Areas Open areas frequently afford the scout the opportunity to observe the enemy from long ranges. Conversely, they often require that the scout be exposed to possible enemy observation and fire for long periods of movement. Therefore, the platoon must make maximum use of the terrain and employ effective observation techniques to avoid exposing itself to a well-concealed and camouflaged enemy. Before moving across a large open area, the scout platoon must make a thorough visual scan of the area. This should be done both dismounted and mounted, using all available optics. This scan focuses not only on finding potential enemy positions, but also on locating covered and concealed routes for bounding and a covered and concealed position to which the unit can move. If time and terrain permit, dismounted scouts may be used to move to the far side of the open area and secure it. In very large open areas, use of dismounts may not be feasible because of the distances between covered and concealed positions. Once the area has been cleared using visual means and/or dismounts, the scouts move across it. They use bounding overwatch because of the likelihood of enemy contact. If the open area is very large, the overwatch vehicle should only remain stationary until the bounding vehicle has moved a distance equal to half the effective range of the overwatching vehicle’s weapon system. When that point is reached, the overwatch vehicle must move out, even if the bounding vehicle has not yet reached a position of cover and concealment. When moving across large open areas with limited cover and concealment, the scouts should consider the use of reconnaissance by indirect or direct fire to provide additional security as they move. Additionally, indirect fire can provide concealment, with smoke either used alone or mixed with suppressive fires. However, using smoke is feasible only for limited periods because of Class V supply restrictions on supporting mortar or artillery units. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: I realize they currently can't blow barbed wire, but why not? Clearly it is one of the engineers jobs to do under battle conditions. Just wondered everyones opinion on this and if BTS would weigh in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grognerd_Fogman: I've brought this up a couple of times in the past two weeks but I still haven't found a response to as why people are not willing to use Ambush markers early on in the game for all their rear forces that they wish no-one to recon (tanks, antitanks, guns etc...)and expose early on. All guns and HQ units can plot these things really really close to the other units (in command) and supposedly in version 1.05 they will make them stick to them even better than before so they won't open up when they see something a little beyond the marker. If they don't open up on the recon unit, it would really have to be close just to see it, especially when hidden too. You can still keep your normal spotting units un-markerized and unhidden (like half-squads reconners) and maybe a machine gun on each flank so that they can see better and take out a light skinned recon vehicle if encountered. Maybe this only seems to be working for me and others might see flaws with it or it's not to their liking for some reason. Would like to hear why people aren't willing to do it. Is there any inherent risks in doing something like this that I haven't seen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting but it is simply using one game function to try and stop another game functions. CM has limitations, no offense to BTS, just as any other game, computer or otherwise. It can only simulate so much. In RL one could have forward units to allow recon elements to pass through their positions. When we would perform a screen mission we would ID enemy recon units and observe them as they passed through our screen. We would then hand them off to a "hunter team", usually tanks, that would move up and engage them behind the screen. This way the enemy would not have information on the location of the screen. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: The point that YOU seem to be missing is that people in a jeep don't need telepathy to radio back information about what they see or hear...You need a better reason than the "telepathy" question to discredit the fast recon method, because the telepathy question is everywhere in the game, where everyone can see what ANYONE sees That doesn't bother me much, but it seems to bother other people only when JEEPS are involved... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, that is what makes it "gamey". This method of "recon" works because of the game engine. If not for the game engine the method would likely be useless. It is not a realistic method or tactic employed by forces in WWII but a method or tactic used in the game because of the game's engine. If it works in the game BECAUSE it is a game it is "gamey" IMO. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I do indeed enjoy this discussion... Now it is labeled gamey not because it would not work in real life, suppose it was a remote control drone jeep sent out to darw fire and everyone sat back and watched it, I suspect this tactic would work very well in real life(the remote control drone jeep with two dummy human figures in it)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Question is would anyone open fire on it? IRL one will usually have priority targets for which they are to engage and would be unlikely to give away a position to attack a jeep. Do you think a defensive force would give away half of its positions by firing on a jeep? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My issue is the now this tactic of watching the jeep with stationary units from a safe distance is gamey because a commander has decided the jeep is expendable and should be sacrificed for the greater good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If using living troops I would think it would be as who would willing drive a jeep to be destroyed for the "greater good"? Using a remote jeep may not be but both still beg the question if they would even be effective at all. In CM units open fire on targets you'd likely [not want] them to. I beleive fire dicipline in RL would be much better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I fully support all efforts to reduce borg-like intel gathering and anything that can be done to reduce the effects of absolute spotting and the telepathy amongst units when cheap fast units are sent on suicide recon runs BUT I'm uncomfortable, (honestly) when I'm told that even though the jeep will not spot anything when its is moving fast, if I have units watching what happens to it on its deep penetration suicide joy ride, I'm STILL gamey because I have ordered a unit into a VERY risky situation where I ordered it into harms way with the intention that it would run around in the open and get shot at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you think in RL soldiers would accept a "deep penetration suicide joy ride" you are crazy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If it is realistic to expect that a stationary unit, (with a radio) has good LOS to my suicide jeep then the problem of the borg like intel gathering is negated but the issue is still considered gamey because I have chosen to expend a unit on a suicide mission with blatant discard for the lives of the crew, that's the problem I have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "gamey" part is the "suicide jeep". It's "gamey" because you can order suicide mission that would likely not be followed in RL and unlike RL in the game you don't have to worry about conserving your force for future operations. Doing something in the game because it is a game and not based on any realistic tactics, strategy or feasibility is "gamey". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Again it is the cheapest way to gather the most recon intel by risking one of the most expendable units at my disposal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Expendable in what terms? GAME points? Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: You are quite, correct, I am entitled to my opinion. Religion is stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would argue that non-religion is its own religion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I personally like the sucide jeep ride analogy to the kamikze WWII japanese pilots who happily gave their lives. I think that the kamikze pilot "trick" (actually used in WWII) would be labeled "gamey" by many here as it clearly falls with in the definition of knowing you are going to die and the pilot and fighter plane will be definatly be destroyed trying to achieve their objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not if used by Japanese units at the historical time-frame of the war. Having Americans use it in 1943 would certainly be "gamey". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mention this because it is IMO a good example of the concept of winning at ANY cost or die trying, which should be considered a legitimate military tactic and not labeled "gamey"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, it is a foolish comparison because there was no "winning at ANY cost or die trying" with a kamikze run, there was ONLY death. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I sort of hate to mention this as it seems to still be a tender subject for the American's here but in Real Life Vietman war tactics and combat, the U.S. forces faced the gameyest opponent in the history of armed conflict. The enemy in this case did ANYTHING AND everything to win or inflict casaulaties. They fought what could be considered the sneakiest and dirtiest war ever fought. Complete with Sneak attacks (Tet offensive) booby traps, human wave attacks, human suicide runners with bombs strapped to them and so on. In that conflict EVERY dirty trick and tactic was and acceptable way to wage war. From a point of military history WWII was much more orderly affair, and that is what we are trying to simulate here, so I guess now I'm just ranting again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes a rant and off message. Using tactics employed by HISTORIC units is not "gamey". Doing something that the units would not do is. Having VC suicide bombers is one thing, having US service men do it would be. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do sincerely hope I did not offend anyone who lost friends, relatives or loved ones in Southeast Asia, I was just trying to point out that in that real world conflict dirty tricks and tactics were an every day occurance and it was most certainly a "no holds barred" kind of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And one would note that their "gamey" tactics cost them on the order of 1,000,000 dead versus our 50,000. You do the math. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: OK, let's consider the following situation: when blitzkrieg forces broke through enemy lines and rushed into unknown enemy territory, did their recon units move at a walking pace? Of course not, they would then fall behind the armor. When mechanized forces moved 100 miles a day, as often happened in WW2, their recon forces had to move at that pace or faster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Recon units still employed over-watch movements, such as using M8's to over-watch jeeps as they scouted ahead. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And I believe that professional soldiers here can confirm that recon forces generally had to be FAR ahead of the main force. And no one will deny (I hope) that the purpose of recon forces is to get as much information about enemy dispositions as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Battalion recon is usually no more than 3-10 kilometers ahead of the battalion. Cav GAIN AND MAINTAIN ENEMY CONTACT Scouts seek visual contact with the enemy on favorable terms. They employ sound tactical movement, effective target aquisition methods, and appropriate actions on contact to see the enemy first and thereby retain the iniative and control of the situation. Once scouts find the enemy, they maintain contact using all available means until their commander orders them to do otherwise or as required by their specific instructions. -FM 17-98 Scout Platoon [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-20-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Are you saying the Americans never EVER walked into a minefield ? Hence all minefields should do no damage to any American unit traversing it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you are being asinine. I guess it is to be expected from one who no longer has points from which to draw on to defend his position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Recce is what it is all about, finding out what the opponent has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but is the GAME that allows such "tactics" to work and NOT realistic behavior. It works because of the game system, hence it is "gamey". The GAME system is unlikely to be changed because of the nature of the GAME. Recon is about making and maintaining contact NOT driving about and getting killed because the GAME engine allows every friendly unit to see what you do. CavScout 19Delta Cavalry Scout US Army 1-1 Cavalry Squadron, 1 AD 4-64 Armor Battalion, 24th ID (M) 2-185 Armor Battalion, 40th ID (Ca NG)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Can I claim "gamey tactics" then just because I find such a waste of human life and resources distasteful ? Conversely, do you plan to make the use of aforementioned tactics impossible just because Amnesty International objects to them strongly ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How would it be "gamey" if it based on historic/real-life methods? Having the Soviets do it would not be, having Americans do it would be. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: So why were LRRP's used by all sides during the war ? I do not mean just the ones that penetrated hundreds of kilometers behind the lines. Finnish forces at least conducted (foot infantry) recce patrols to the enemy rear while the battle was raging on a regular basis throughout the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What a LRRP team does and what the jeeps were describe as doing are completly different animals. LRRP team wouldn't run around seeing if someone would shoot at them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> All is fair in love and war. Mind you, utilizing a clear, known bug does not count here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If all was fair in war, why'd we hang them Germans after the war? Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Yes and no. You assume that the soldiers KNOW it is a 0% survival rate mission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Take your jeep and drive all around the enemy's front and draw fire so we know where they. You are not to seek cover, defend yourself or quit. Just keep doing it untill you are dead." That is about what the "gamey recon" is basically doing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And you assume that the soldiers have an option of disobeying a direct order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Soldiers always do. Is that why we hung those folks at Nuremberg? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Morale is the fundamental issue. They can opt to go "missing" or lose radio contact after they have received their orders and have sped of to the sunset. They may even go AWOL altogether. But the military justice system will make it clear how the cookie crumbles then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or more likely just seek cover once they draw their first fire. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> All who have served in the military know for a fact what going AWOL or showing cowardice in the face of the enemy mean in terms of court martial sentences. Mostly death sentences or VERY long prison terms with dishonourable discharge that marks them for life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are drifting off-topic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Doing less than 100% is less risky but you have to face your buddies afterwards that might have suffered heavily because you chose not to follow orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you've never seen pictures of a dozen guys trying to hide behind one piece of cover instead of moving forward? Never heard of soldiers remaining in place behind the only cover they thought was around, ignoring the orders to advance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is a vicious circle and the only way to avoid them is to follow the damn orders and hope the commander is not after a medal or otherwise incompetent. The grunts have really no options but to sit in the middle and suck on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simply B.S. No soldier in his right mind is going to waste their life just to "follow orders". Hell, even the Germans had whole units disobey orders from Hitler. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I still think that a commander can order his troops to do what ever is necessary to do the job. Including getting killed on the job. Callous ? Perhaps, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. If a commander decides to beak a few eggs to make the omelette it is his decision. If the troops survive so much the better for him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A commander can "order" anything but the question is would the soldier follow it. Soldiers are highly unlikly to follow a "suicide" order unless under a very dire circumstances. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Does anyone believe that when the Germans were doing recon in the flat Ukraine plains, their recon vehicles did not move fast? Why the hell do you think that recon vehicles were made to go fast? So that they could move slowly and deliberately? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are fast so that they can get out of trouble when they get into it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo: "The Brits bailed out when it got rough and retreated tot he mainland" Just like the Americans in the philipines? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ayep and why I still can't figure why McArthur is given such accolades. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: The Germans fought tooth and nail to the very end, just like the British and the Japanese. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans and Japanese all fought untill they surendered, just like the French. Exactly what is the differance. The Brits bailed out when it got rough and retreated tot he mainland. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The French were outfought but they also gave up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No different than the Germans or Japanese. They all gave up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Cavscout, I agree that necessity caused the Australian participation but a lot of people feel the same way about the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How so? The U.S. was never [truly] threatened by the Japanese or Germans. On the other hand, the Japanese were close to establishing bases that could have bombed Australia. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some could argue that, considering how safe we were from attack, our national effort was astounding. To those people I would say "Yes but...", yes but this does not take away the national honor gained by an nation that fights to the very end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I still don't understand this "national honor" you praise. What is the honor in fighting to the end in a war you can not win and one which you started? What is the honor in Germany waiting untill the country was overrun to give-up? Where is the honor in waiting for two atomic bombs to erase two of your cities? Japan and Germany were under rulers who cared little for their own people [and only] for themselves. Hitler fought untill the end because he didn't think the German people deserved to live if they lost. Is that honor? Cav "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak: One reason why Germany beat France so quickly can also be contributed twards the fact that France put too much faith in the magino (not sure if it is spelled right) line. French generals concluded that the arddens region was too heavly forested for tanks to pass through so they concluded that the german army would have to directly attack the magino line.The germans did however attack through the arddens and belgium,and holland with the succesfull use of paratroopers.Thus flanking the magino line and attacking it from the rear not too mention trapping several thousand french and british troops around Dunkirk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The part about the Ardennes is correct, it was though, both bef[o]re the fall of France and later in the Battle of the Bulge, to be too impassible for attack. On the other hand, the French and British DID expect the Germans to attack through Low Countries. This is where many of the forces were. In fact, the German plan dpended on the Allies moving to defend the Low Countries. The Germans attacked in the North, got their attention and then punched through in the South and turned their flank. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: And he'd be right. The US may be more responsible for victory in WWII but that does not diminish the fact that countries like Australia gave disproportionately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you support this "fact"? What sources can I go to to see the numbers? I believe you I just want to check them out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Disproportionate effort is what makes us laugh at France and give respect to Germany and Japan. Some countries just have a stronger national will than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Blah. It has nothing to do with "national will" as much as immediate threat. Countries moblize more when they are the crest of being over-run. I don't admire Japan or Germany for the numbers they tossed into battle. They had too. Their very countries depended on it. I don't know why France gets a bad rap. There military was crippled by poor leadership more than anything. When the Germans invaded the Allies had more tanks, and better, troops and a similar number of planes. France and the UK were outplayed not outmanned in France. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4FanAWOL: Hi all from a newbie, I live in Sydney and i don't recall the USMC being involved in the confiscation of firearms. Gun owners were required to take them to police stations.There would be a **** storm of gargutuan proportions if foreign troops were used in any way in oz for something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't make much sense to me either...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: They tried to strong-arm Japan into buying the poor quality American cars, for example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is misleading. The U.S. has found itself in many "trade agreements" where so-called "free trade" is free only in one way. Take Japan for example, they limit the number of cars that American companies can sell in Japan. If American cars are "crap", as you indicated, then they will fail in the market. But how can one truly guage the quality if they are not allowed to be sold? I am not familure with the Canadian/US problems in trade, that you mentioned, as much as I am with Mexican/US trade. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil the Dill: I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: that Australia didn't commit many troops compared with USA? In fact proportionally to our population (approx 10 million 41')we commited quite a large proportion, more in total than India contributed - despite their large population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are quite right... the USA's contributions were minor. In fact, I doubt the USA was even needed in the war... Seriously, that's like arguing that because you have 10 men with me having 10,000 and you sent 4 off to battle and I sent 2,000 and then you then claimed you were "more" contributing because you sent 40% and I only 20%. Go figure. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I'm sorry, I can't let that one go. I believe Australia & N.Z. were doing their fair share of the fighting against Japan in 1942 from my recollection. In fact it was the Aussies at Milne Bay which inflicted the first decent defeat on the Japs back in '42. Sorry, but we here in Australia kind of get sick of the old "McArthur" attitude that it was only the red white & blue that fought in the Pacific theatre. Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nothing was said against the other Allies in the Pacific. The thread was infact about America's "Germany First" policy. I simply pointed out that the USA was active in the Pacific before they were really doing [much] against Germany. As for McArthur, I don't think much of him. I don't think he was any great General. Like others of the War, Rommel and Monty, I think they are "heros" of the press more than actual military skill. As for other countries, yes there were others. There were many on the Allied side. One has to look obejectivly at their contributions. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Is 1st. Cav. called a division now. Last I heard it was still called a regiment, but that's been a couple of years, so I could be wrong. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't confuse the "1st Calvary Divison" with an ACR. cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Fauster: I was under the impression that Germany declared war on the U.S. after the bombing at Pearl Harbor as a result of a non-binding understanding with Japan that they, in turn, would declare war on the USSR thereby draining forces from Germany's eastern front. The Japanese, much to Hitler's displeasure, did not follow through with their end of the deal. Yes no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Russia and Japan had a non-aggresssion treaty for much of the war.