Kallimakhos

No. You are totally wrong. The Finnish army was drinking piss by their shamans, who had consumed big amounts of Kärpässieni (soma). So did our Siberian foes. With our enhanced shamaninoid perceprion we "smelled" the foes. Unfortunately so did the Siberians. And they were hard to kill. I took half a clip of Suomi SMG to make one Siberian permanently ineffective. And then there was the "magic mushroooms". When it got toughs we just ate some psilcocybin with our Siberian bros and moved to Moon :cool: .

Thanks but no thanks. Where is your family from and what is your experience? Are you Dutch or from some other place? I mean no disrespect and sure, you maybe a supergrog, unlike me. I lost two great uncles on the front and that don't make me proud, just sad. Me being a bad-ass CM player is totally unrelated to my family history.

Double post. [ October 20, 2002, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

Hmm, you make many questions. The first is easy. The German divisions fighting in Finland were usually very unsuccesfull and laughed at. Basically Germans were just no use attacking in arctic or heawy woods. On the other hand, In 1944 German army gave decisive support on defending Finnish shores agains Russian amphbious attack. Your other questions sound actually interesting, if one would understand what the questions were? Don't shy away, but try to formulate your questions better, and there might arise actual discussion on these important and interesting issues.

No problem, the Finns had radios but preferred not to use them unless they absolutely had to, so giving the Finns radio-FO's would be counter to their own doctrine And besides the only difference between wire and radio FO's is how fast/far they can move around the map. In the case of the Finns that would be usefull only for 'gamey' reasons (moving your FO's with maneauver units, which didn't happen historically).</font>

Maybe I was not clear in how I said it, but this is a serious issue for us non-Finns. There is a serious number of Finns (not just Tero ) that will simply erupt in rage if you dare claim that Finland was "defeated" in either war. And these Finns seem intent on pounding into us the belief that Finland actually won both the Winter and Continuation Wars. And it's these Finns that in many ways form the image we have of Finns and their attitude towards the past. Hence it often seems to us that Finns are stuck in their own 0berfinn mythos. </font>

And when exactly I stated that? I guess you didn´t even read the article I posted.</font>

This is the history as it should hve been, but you give too much credit for both the sides. Finns and Germans both hoped to make it peacefully, but Soviet insisted being more brutal and some Finnish generals were willing. The fighting in Tornio was wery real, and all the fighting after that. The pretend war between Germany and Finland lasted only one or two weeks, after that it was bloody as ever. For Finns it was the price of keeping independence, Germans felt betrayed and burned Lapponia. There were real, bloody battles that should and could be replayed in CMBB. So please, make it historical, and let the Finns fight Germans!!!

The problem here is that we could probably all agree on this, except it has already been called a lie, anglo-american propaganda, and a myth by some of your compatriots. Apparently if you don't agree that the Finns a chieved an unquotation marked Victory and defeated the soviet union outright twice you are misunderstanding history.. at least that's how it seems. And that is what's causing a lot of friction, and the belief that (some) Finns believe the 0berfinn mythology. [Edited for spelling & typos]</font>

Those gripes are based on nothing, there is no problem with Finnish FO's and no need for radio FO's (that aren't superior to wire FO's anyway). It's all just a simple misunderstanding.</font>

Steve, this a bit of deja-vu, but anyway too minor points on your "history of Finnish wars". You were more right than you suspected on how close the Winter war was, and how lucky the Finns were. The diplomatic front was as important as the battle field. According to new information coming from the soviet files, Stalin had inaccurate information from London and Paris and he hugely overestimated the threat of British-French expeditionary force coming to aid the Finns. It was actually just the day after Stalin had aggreed to peace aggreement that he got more accurate information that the British-French aid, which he feared, was just big talk and nothing more (and on the field Finns were totally beaten, no ammo, no nothing, going on the very last fumes, just showing off.) No need to tell that when Stalin learned the truth he was mighty pissed and his spies in question weren't happy after that. Second point. You understand to some extend what was strategically in play on the northern front, but I must say you downplay a bit the relative importance of what IF. It was a conscious decision by Mannerheim (judging his troops willingnes and other factors) not to sack Leningrad, and also the all important supply routes from Murmansk could have been hit much worse by Finns if they had chosen so. Mannerheim and Finnish governement set very limited goals, Eastern Karelia was basically just a bargaining chip, a tactic that failed in the end. If Mannerheim had shared the same goals with Hitler and sacked Leningrad and cut the Murmansk railroads, who knows what would have happened. There was a lot of friction and badmouthing between Finns and Germans in 1941 and 1942. Finnland was never a full ally of Germany but had it's own more limited agenda. The hypothetical question, if Finland had shared the same goals with Germany and gone all the way, would sacking Leningrand and putting a stop on aid from Murmansk have made a difference? Interesting academic question, at least. Anyway, I'm glad Mannerheim decided not to listen to Hitler but did his best to stay in the gray area. OK, this goes just to show that militarily North was just as important as any other front (north-Murmansk and Leningrad; center-Moscow; south-Caspian oil) and you do not do justice just calling Finnish front strategically unimportant side-show. What was important and maybe even decisive was the political, less military, decision of inaction by Finnish military and political command. To sum up: Finnish army was not out of puff to take very important strategic goals in 42, which mihgt have in many credible scenarios turned the balance and caused Axis victory on Eastern front and Russian collapse. It was a political desicion by the Finnish leadership, not military, not to do that, much thanks to very effective Western (US and UK) diplomacy. So please don't say that Finnish front was relatively unimportant, because that is not true. It was Finnish political decision to downplay the military importance of the northern front, and Hitler was very rightly extremely pissed with that desicion by Mannerheim.

Sorry for stepping in, I hope that JR8 might discuss a little bit the relationship of the Book and his father's experiences. That would be a treat for every Finn on the bord. Anyway, the regiment in question is the regiment where a certain MG company served, which was the historical base for Väino Linna's (who served in that company) novel 'Unknown Soldier' and the two very popular movies based on that book. It is the "official" unofficial story of the Finnish soldier, but also very universal story of war with a Finnish twist. In the nation's mythology it's probably bigger than Bible or Kalevala. It's translated into English (not very well) and many other languages, and actually it is a VERY good novel on historical infantry tactics, human experience in time of war, humour and tragedy, an úbersoldier, pompous officers etc., No spoilers if you don't insist having them, read it if you can find it. BTW I've understood that a lot of the Finnish infantry sounds in CMBB are quotes from that Book. [ October 18, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

Ouch. So what were those heinous russians to do? Pick out the germans in Finland? Because the Finns had allowed germans to use their airbases to lauch raids against the USSR (that is generally considered an act of war).</font>

So in effect 0berartillery would make stopping the Red Army beyond Vyborg possible, at the expense of historic realism (and playability) in any other battle in the area... I guess the best solution would be to represent this situations through scenarios rather than giving the Finns massive advantadges in the game mechanics </font>

Anyway and whatever, Finns shouldn't be expecting given victories on plate and better handicaps in any area or even realistic modelling in game terms. The many überweirdo's on the battlefield like the mentiones sniper/sharp shooter should be just forgotten and brushed of as the weirdos they are. That weirdo must be you! The rep is there and it is up to Finnish gamers to keep it up, however unfair, unhistorical or biased the system may be . Don't whine, if you are a Finn, you are über- and it is your duty to show it on ladders, tournaments and other encounters. If you are given a single sharp shooter with a toothpick and one broken ski against an armoured enemy brigade lead by Fionn and then somefink, don't whine, just win. If the guy with the toothpick fails, it is not his fault, but yours, not living up to normal Finnish standards of überliedership!

Kwazy, thanks for all the good news, one more thing: any hope of Finns vs Gerries? There are many interesting historical scenarios waiting for the opportunity.

Well, AFAIK the doctrine wasn't honed to perfection till the latter part of the war and cartography, one essential part, was far from home front standards during offence beyond old borders in 1941 and sometime after. To sell this Great Idea to BTS we need some people who unlike me actually know what they are speaking about, understand the doctrine and it's practice fully against a larger context and can offer good sources and data to back their claims and support credible modelling. Plus have the social skills to sell this idea. Tero, no disrespect hear, you may very well fill the first two requirements but I believe you yourself are the first one two admit that the history of clashes with Steve shows that your salesmanship skills have room for improvement . If BTS answers, my guess is first response would be that saturating the map with TRP's is a option already available in scenarios, and pretty hard facts are needed to convinse that this would be very historical and realistic. Even if BTS don't take the bait, I would still be interested in understanding the Finnish artillery doctrine better (more than just massing all the guns for a short devastating effect in a given location, which is "beyond the tactical scope of CM"), what were the actual response times and accuracy and how they were achieved in RL.

Not true. The way it goes, in CMBO, CMBB and RL alike, if the attacker succeeds in his attack, the defender casualties (and prisoners) will follow. One common possibility, also realistic, is Pyrrhic victory, you get the flags but at too much cost, defender gets out inflicting heavy casualties on the defender. So the object and plan must be not just to take flags but also to destroy defending enemy forces. 2:1 would improve the chanses of succeeding in this a lot compared to 1.5:1. Attacker don't even have to allways take the flags, some cases he can consentrate on just destroying the defender's forces peace by peace by use of overwhelming local superiority.

U cant change the arty model for a nation based on the battles in one sector.</font>

If there's just one boat and it's the old CMBO generic sloooooooow rowing boat modell or somefink, I'm disappointed. This means no realistic historical river-crossing assaults. Finn's too had fast assault boats with motor (and russkies too with all probability), and you could place a machine gun in the front suppressing the enemy on the other side while charging through the smoke. :cool: These assault boats should have inherent crew (1-2) and be able to return after delivering the load, and besides being carried by hand it would be nice if they could be loaded in a truck. Alas, the current model probably wont let MG's fire when carried. As for rafts or towing or somefink to move heavies accross, I would imagine the answer is the usual "not in the scope of the game". And rightly so.

From father's side my grandpa fought in artillery in Continuation war and survived. From mothers side grandpa fought in Winter war, was badly wounded in the head and freed from service. He had three brothers. Two of them fought through Winter. In Continuation war they were both company commanders on the Kannas front. When one of them fell in summer 1941, the other one had to fetch the body from between frontlines and fell himself two days after that. The fourth brother was too young to participate. Grandma served organizing Lotta Svärd in her hometown in both wars. Once, while pregnant, when running to the shelter during air bombing she fell causing internal bleeding in the woomb. Luckily the child survived and became my mother.

You right, as a rule succesfull frontal attacks in snow can't be done and wasn't done by the Finns. Suomussalmi was special in many ways, and it was during Winter war, not Continuation war (CMBB). Russians tried it a lot in Winter war and got slaughtered. In Continuation war all the big fighting happended during summer. If you want to use ski troops in attack to their maximum effect, choose a large map, lot's of woods, limited visibility, heavy recon and then flank, flank flank. Haven't got the game yet, but historically this should work even with 1:1 ratio or even worse, attacker having better experience and fittnes. Not being able to get back on ski's is a problem after a skirmish, but that's something one must live with and come up with ways not to lose ski's before reaching a good position for surprise attack. For example: advande in que leading with half squad, if and when face enemy fire, leave the half squad to shoot and flank again with the rest. On a small map just don't bother with ski's, they're no use.

Sorry, I intended to post this on the general forum. Feel free to lock up.

The current estimates on innocent civilians killed in Afganistan by American armed forces, especially Air force, seem to vary to the date between 400-800. The main reason, despite very effective PR and denying efforts, is the usual: stupidity and gullibility, usually unavoidable with anything military. The overall tendency to avoid civilians getting killed must be acknoledged and appreciated, but my real question is this: how much "collateral damage" is morally tolerable? Lets here some numbers! Personally I don't have answer, and my moral dilemma is that maybe I should have an answer... and yes I do know the "one is too many" -approach is too easy...

... means EU + Norway and Switzerland