Kallimakhos

The Swedish help for Finland is a fact, there was material aid (basically non-military), and Sweden did allow volunteers to fight for Finland. Wheather Swedish governement could have done more to help Finland is an academic question. Their position was at least very helpfull in secret diplomatic negotiations, that were going on for the most of the time. The post-war material aid was substantial and much appreciated. One thing that many people do not seem to know, that during the later part of Winter war, when England and France were giving promises of aid to Finland (which made Stalin a bit affraid), the real object of these allied plans was to occupy Kiiruna and the ore mines after making a landing in Norway. Sweden as a neutral independent country didn't think this was a great idea, and propably would have put up a fight. So a quite plausible what if scenario would be Swedes fighting against British and French attacking forces in the early months of 1940. This was a time of really heavy diplomacy and a lot of what if -scenarios. The allied plans didn't stay secret, and influenced heavily on Hitler's decision to invade Denmark and Norway. I believe there were actually many occations when Swedish border pattrols were engaged in firefights both on the west border, even helping Norvegian resistance, and east border during the Lappland war.

It's been posted in an earlier SMG thread that according to this site: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html, Finns tried to convert Pepesha for using 9mm, but found it too difficult. Apparently Germans had better success, Steve had plenty of sources saying that converted PPSh was used by Germans at least to some extent.

From what I've read (which is not very much) I've understood that Germans gave up the attempt on Murmansk not so much because of opposing Russian forces - which also was very tough - but because terrain and other conditions (arctic, mountains, no roads etc.) made large bulk of their forces ineffective even without contact to enemy. The northern most front was a logistical nightmere which made supplying large attack formations impossible even during the short summer, attacking in winter wasn't even considered. There was another attempt further south, in Salla, a joint Finnish-German operation which had some early succes, but the German 36th army group, not good fighting in woods, suffered heavy losses and became soon inoperative, and the supporting Finnish 6th division was finally forbidden to continue the attack by order from Mannerheim. Again, something to do with western ultimatums. It is possible this front could have offered more possibilities, if Germans would have been willing to concentrate more troops, hard to say. Anyway it seems that the Germans underestimated the difficulty of terrain or overestimated their troop's abilities. This front was also very far away from other fronts, so shifting more troops there couldn't happen on short notice. If I remember right, it took four months for one Gerbildivision to ship from Greece to Murmansk front. I feel sorry for those guys!

I'm very confident that this will be best game ever also from the Finnish point of you, thank you for reassuring this . It is thrilling to hear that you take such interest in Finland. Now to the point, one of the big IF's of the war. I do not believe for a second that Germans didn't realize the full potential of the northern front, they just couldn't make the Finns do what they wanted, despite numerous attempts. Needles to say, they were more than disappointed in the Finnish response. One very important thing to remember is that Finland and Germany were not officially allies, the Finnish stand being that they were conducting "separate" or "parallel" war. Germans did make a serious attempt against Murmansk from Norway, which failed miserably. Extremely difficult terrain and wheather conditions made supply virtually impossible and allthough Germans were mountain troops, their experience and abilities were not suited for these conditions. Finnish patrols did cut the Murmansk railway few times, more permanent solution would have required occupying vast areas of enemy ground. On the Leningrad issue there has been a lot of speculation for the reasons why Finland refused Germany's request to attack Leningrad. Two common answers are that Finns feared Russian revenge after the war would be lost and that Mannerheim had emotional attachment to St. Petersburg of his youth. First reason is afterwisdom to large part, though it didn't go unnoticed that Germans started to suffer big losses already at this point. I believe the second reason is just silly, even if Mannerheim would have let such sentimentall things to affect his desicions (which I doubt), it was not for him to deside alone but also for the Finnish governement. The real reasons were many. Taking Leningrad would have required lot more than just "whee bit more effort" from the Finnish side, it would have meant huge losses for a country whose resources and manpower were already stretched. Men were needed also on the fields. Secondly, the moral support for this action was close to nonexistant, as a matter of fact there had been already some serious mutinies when soldiers had been ordered to cross the old border. Very important factor was also the role of western diplomacy, ultimatums by GB and USA, as Finnland wanted to avoid war with them. GB was forced to declare war in december 1941, but Finland managed to keep peace with US. Most importantly Finnland's strategic goals were to get back the land which had been lost in Winter war, and some people had dreams about getting a piece of Eastern Karelia. When these goals were achieved, it was found wiser to wait and see. Sorry for the OT rant, there is lot more to it of course, but I'll spare you this time . [ February 04, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

1941-45, Poland and Winter war not included, but should be relatively easy to create also Winter war scenarios.

Something tells me you know the answer allready , but let's make a guess that it's got something to do with your feet crunching millions of them unique, beautifull snowflakes...

This was also my first thought: comfortably strolling in light fluffy snow, suddenly <whomp> and you are in it up to your armpits . I share your feeling, hate skiing too: it's not healthy for your groin when your other foot is touching your forhead and the other foot touching your backside .

Where is the source for this? I ask because Finns tried the same but found it too difficult. Quote: "Heaps of captured PPSh guns were stocked in depots. At one point there were plans to modify them to use 9 mm Luger ammunition by replacing the barrel and shortening the space between the "jaws" of the magazine well to that Finnish magazines could be used. This modification was soon found to be too difficult to accomplish. The Russian 7.62 mm Tokarev cartridge is five millimeters longer than the 9 mm Luger cartridge and Finnish magazines were accordingly less high. It was possible to narrow the magazine jaws by splitting the receiver into two parts, milling and welding the parts together again. However the welding weakened precisely the least durable place of the receiver. (Nobody realized that Russian magazines feed 9 x 19 mm cartridges without a hitch, despite the cartridge's shorter length !)" (http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi2.html)

I believe the most important underlying question here is: will CMBB be not only the most realistic EF-game so far, but offer also balanced human vs human gameplay in all kinds of QBs? This is after all a GAME and this is the single most important issue. E.g., it wouldn't be fun to lose 75% of your battles as soviets in the early days against an opponent on the same level. I have every faith in BTS's approach and abilities - CMBO got it right - but still this is a huge task to achieve considering the time scale and multiple variables. So I join the other guys asking: how does it now look in testing, every side got an equal winning chance already, at all times?

Good discussion. Just one point on the realism of broad front recon, which could be called also intense prebattle patrolling. For game play reasons, the whole time scale of CM is compressed, and rightly so - a battle which in RL wood take several hours is resolved normally in half an hour. Considering this overall time compression, broad front recon doesn't look at all unrealistic.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? (or something like that). Steve<hr></blockquote> A bit more than that, I believe, 2-3? Some confusion is created by the fact that Finns considered the Sotka also a heavy tank . Anyway, the number is still indeed very small number, but I really hope Finns will be able get also these heavies, both KV-1 and Sotka. Not so much for QB, but for historical scenario builders they are a must. Finnish heavy tanks played a very important, almost decisive role early in the Ihantala Battle, in the Portinhoikka counter attack, which was very important for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. As a whole, I dont think Finnish KV-1(s) saw real action more than 3 times, if even so many, so rarity must of course be insanely high for them. I haven't seen a affirmative answer yet, so are they going to be included? Please pretty please... and yes I know this is a one big favor for Finnish scenario builders! On general level, all you've been telling us sounds good so far, big thanks! Just one clarification, maybe I'm just stupid: is there only one Finnish TO%E or more, in pragmatic terms, with rarity on, can you make somehow a choise (unrandomize?) that you get tanks and jägers in reasonable price? In other words, if you get tanks, you should also get jägers, but not vice verse, cause if I remember right, there were also jäger units on divisional/regimental level. With rarity on, getting any tanks at reasonable prize for any infantry type should be quite rare of course. PS: from what I hear, also Romania and Hungary will be very interesting to play with . Can't wait! PPS: This goes of topic, but I gotta ask: what about play balance with infantry only agains tanks? In CMBO it is really hard to KO AFV's even without infantry support, will the ods be adjusted (not much, just a bit)? And will there be specialized AT infantry units before the schreck/faust era at least for some nationalities? This question is related to the FT debate, and according to your principles - if I understood them right - historically at least Finnish AT guys should be (mostly) a separate unit. They had a special training and were company level assets, so preferably also with more experience, if that is possible in random QB's.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? (or something like that). Steve<hr></blockquote> A bit more than that, I believe, 2-3? Some confusion is created by the fact that Finns considered the Sotka also a heavy tank . Anyway, the number is still indeed very small number, but I really hope Finns will be able get also these heavies, both KV-1 and Sotka. Not so much for QB, but for historical scenario builders they are a must. Finnish heavy tanks played a very important, almost decisive role early in the Ihantala Battle, in the Portinhoikka counter attack, which was very important for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. As a whole, I dont think Finnish KV-1(s) saw real action more than 3 times, if even so many, so rarity must of course be insanely high for them. I haven't seen a affirmative answer yet, so are they going to be included? Please pretty please... and yes I know this is a one big favor for Finnish scenario builders! On general level, all you've been telling us sounds good so far, big thanks! Just one clarification, maybe I'm just stupid: is there only one Finnish TO%E or more, in pragmatic terms, with rarity on, can you make somehow a choise (unrandomize?) that you get tanks and jägers in reasonable price? In other words, if you get tanks, you should also get jägers, but not vice verse, cause if I remember right, there were also jäger units on divisional/regimental level. With rarity on, getting any tanks at reasonable prize for any infantry type should be quite rare of course. PS: from what I hear, also Romania and Hungary will be very interesting to play with . Can't wait! PPS: This goes of topic, but I gotta ask: what about play balance with infantry only agains tanks? In CMBO it is really hard to KO AFV's even without infantry support, will the ods be adjusted (not much, just a bit)? And will there be specialized AT infantry units before the schreck/faust era at least for some nationalities? This question is related to the FT debate, and according to your principles - if I understood them right - historically at least Finnish AT guys should be (mostly) a separate unit. They had a special training and were company level assets, so preferably also with more experience, if that is possible in random QB's.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna: Rubbish, you geographically challenged mercan. Russia is in Asia, not Europe<hr></blockquote> Nah, last time I looked it was in Yourassia.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna: I had some of the same problems with QB's that were identified here (mainly the maps blow and you can't view them before purchase) so I found myself (along with some input from others) finding what I think is the ideal solution and has become the de facto method of setting up a good cesspool match when the denizens there disagree on some issue occasionally. I'll call it the Enhanced Quick Battle, and it really is pretty quick even if it looks complicated. Here's how it works: [ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Goanna ]<hr></blockquote> This is indeed a fun way to play, but if you trust your opponent (99% you can trust!) you don't even need a third party. Just polish the map untill both agree and then pick your forces - just remember that allied picks first!

Porthinhoikka: Finnish armour counterattacks after the Russian breakthrough in Tali, summer 44. The scale might be a little too big for CM though, perhaps operation would work fine. Various river crossings.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf hates artillery: I prefer around 27 for MEs and 29 for attacks. I generally do not connect the number of turns with point sizes. And the reason is that a very long battle with so many units will end up with fragmentation of the game, several games in one. That may be desireable, but usually I want to combine all arms into a large effort. The whole point about a military game is to learn and explore military principles, and that means striking with the best concentration. If the game has too many turns, that will fall apart. <hr></blockquote> What about fun? There is a difference between scales, and if one doesn't feel comfortable at the larger scales then stick to company by all means. But I love seeing how those superficially separate smaller encounters really affect each other, and it all works in beautifully in CM. Smaller games tend to be all against all, but in bigger games you can and must a find a way to create local superiority, in every possible action. If you can't, and stick to one on one or worse, you've lost. I thing bigger games leave more room for imagination and variation, and you really have to have a grasp of the "system", ie how various troops, formations and landscape interact. The number of turns depends on the speed of your units, 40 turns for 3000p armoured is more than enough, but similar points infantry heavy obviously needs more time. 30 turns is fine for smaller (1500) battles, but I prefer not to go under that. In ME's the battles are usually decided before time runs out, which is just as it should be. In attack/defend time has a much more crucial role, more time gives better odds for the attacker. Only one time I've beaten back the attacker, but many times I've slowed him down enough to contest the flags and/or force him to do something foolish in the last minutes, and get a draw. [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ] [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars: A whole Panzer regiment wouldn't make for a very quick QB....<hr></blockquote> Nah, in big armoured battles you just scout and wait for your opponent to reviel himself. But I want them brigades and regiments! 12 hour timelimit! And ammo trucks! And horses! And horses! Whose not grazy enough, who is talking about "scope"? CM is not a game, it is life!

Never played human opponent below 1500p. Preference 2000-5000, the bigger games leave less margin for luck and the better guy usually wins, you can think infantry companies and tank platoons, which I think give more realistic touch, and you get to see that the general plan truly counts. Will need a new machine for CMBB, whatever the wife says. Want to see them doodads on 9km map, and regiments!!! Half a day for one turn, who cares...

36, getting more handsome day by day. When I'm 99, I'll have more fans than Leonardo DiCapprio!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The_Capt: I would argue Manouevre only means something when facing an equal or greater force. Against an enemy who is as good or better than you. Then you may have a good reason to employ it. But when you are large enough and big enough, concentrated firepower centrally planned and coordinated will work very well. It almost seems as though the Doctrine is a "poor mans" doctrine when you cannot establish conditions for a straight Attrition "ass-whooping". What concerns me is that we have made it our central focus and way of doing business to the exclusion of the other doctrine. [ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]<hr></blockquote> Exactly. Raate road battle in Winter war is one classical example. The only advantage Finns had was their speed and thats what they had to use, they could'n afford to wait for the enemy to establish a base and to launch an attack. And once pocketed, the enemy had to be subdued quickly, because in this case it was better to take prisoners than destroy. The loot was worth it. In CM terms, maybe a large armoured ME on a large hilly map qualifies as a test? Axis with their big heavies controlling the ground, hoping to engage the lighter (but faster) allied tanks frontally - or just Daimlers etc. -, allied using their speed to get flank and rear shots.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Kallimakhos, I suspect that if Finland had been located between Hungary and Romania it would have been defeted, occupied, and run as a puppet state of the Soviet Union until the late 1980s. The fact that it was clearly not in the Soviet Union's main sphere of interest saved it from this fate, much the way Yugoslavia was spared. If the Soviet Union really wanted to take either Finland or Yugoslavia at any cost... I am sure they could have. This is not a sight on either country, but rather a neutral observation of military reality and the Soviet's track record. Steve<hr></blockquote> He he, Im glad we were situated elsewhere. What was the name of the other country that didn't get occupied during WWII? But I must say that relations between Russia and Finland differ profoundly from central Europe. We were once a part of the Russian empire, once they liberated us from Sweden and granted us autonomy. Not going to the details more deeply, have you ever heard what the Polish think about Russia? And they speak allmost the same language! No, it's a very complicated love/hate affair betweens Russians and Finns, and you have to remember that our beloved Mannerheim was a Czars's general. And that Lenin wouldn't have been able to get to the town that was to be his namesake, if he didn't have so many Finnish friends. [ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Kallimakhos, And here is where things were VERY different in Finland compared to Western Europe. The Allies had not only superior numbers of artillery and munitions (very important!), but they also had a system of delivering artillery that had both the strategic applications similar to Soviet methods as well as the tactical flexibility similar to Finnish and German. One has to wonder how well the Finns would have done against the same number of guns but with far more tactical and counter battery flexibility than the Soviets actually had. Steve<hr></blockquote> Just one thing: let's not underestimate Russian artillery in 44. Russians had the at least the same ability to gather info as Finns, so when Finns were trying to counterattack, they often got really badly beaten by the Russian fast responce artillery. In 44 Russians were able to do that also! The real issue seems to be that the attacking force is allways more vulnerable to accurate artillery with good recon. And TRP's. A basic lesson in defend/attack or even in atritionist/manouverist approaches, I think.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Mind you that Finland was a minor blip on the Soviet strategic radar both during the Winter War and during the War of Continuation. This meant that all Finland had to do was put up a good enough fight and make victory "not worth the effort" for the Soviets. In 1944 they had far bigger fish to fry in Central and Eastern Europe. Finland was very much a "let's see if we can take them out, otherwise we'll just quit and forget about it" situation for the Soviets. This was not the case on either the Western, Southern, or Eastern Fronts. The entire energy was focused on taking Germany out and occupying every inch of its soil. So one should expect to see differences in how the nations on these fronts fought. While I very much admire and take great interest in Finland's military experiences, they simply can not be compared with the Western forces fighting the Germans in the way you have attempted to do. Might as well bring in examples from the Pacific Theater for all the similarities they shared. Steve<hr></blockquote> You may call the Finnish experience a minor blip, and righly so from the Soviet standpoint, to some extent. Our point of view is of course different . But considering the issues we are talking here, from tactical point of view there are real and interesting tactical and strategic questions why Finns did better than their German allies in similar conditions. These questions shouldn't be brushed aside by calling one front just a blip. Mind you, from the Russian point of view, it was the Leningrad front! So as I have said, many battles in Finland and especially summer 44 are interesting on their theoretical side, why the things happened the way they happened, there are some real lessons to learn there. And as Tero has said many times, in history books this is a story pretty much untold. There is a language barrier, a barrier between historical traditions. I am no great expert on western front or eastern front, my meager knowledge comes from the northern front. I read your comments in awe and admire your knowledge, but yet at the same time I feel the Finnish contribution to these issues is worth acknoledging. Not because of nationalist pride, but beacause I sincerely believe Finnish experience can contribute to these theoretical discussions, and they are not easily available for the non finnish speaking majority . My ulterior motivaton is to play CMBB as Finnns the way I understand it should be done, with historical winning chances, which leads me queston: will the moral, fitness and other variables be totally totally varied or will they be rigged to produce a as plausible random game you can imagine? What ever the answer, I know it is going to be the best game ever... but excelllence is still a neverending process.

Still going on... there is one thing that tends to get forgotten in these discussions, one aspect that applies also to Afganistan very much. The questions who is right and who is wrong! People are not sheep and in the battlefield the side that believes more in the justification of their cause have better moral and in the end they will win. When in continuation war the Finnish army crossed the old borders and started occupying enemy territory, a lot of troops mutinied and some were even shot for treason. Moral got low in many units, and this is one explanation why the Finnish lines crumbled so easily in 44. Only after they were driven back to their own borders, their moral stiffened and they, once again, started to fight for their homes and families. The situation is of course slightly different when you compere countries with tradition in peoples army versus countries traditionally using professional army, but even in this case it is quite obvious that USA lost in Vietnam because majority stopped believing that the war was justified, not because they couldn't handle VC. Sometimes it can take hundreds of years before justice prevails (e.g. colonialism) but it will. Thats the drift. In the mean time, things tend to get really ugly when both sides insist in being wrong (e.g. Israel and Palestine). Of course, justice is difficult, our opinions differ and rightly so. Unjustice is much easier to recognise. War is not science. Justice matters. But of course, this is beyond the scope of CM.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: The strategy being applied in Afghanistan right now is transparently one based on fire, with maneuver elements minsterial to the firepower arms. That is not the only way to fight. It is not even official US army or Marine corps doctrine, both of which are based on a maneuver warfare theory that explicitly envisions maneuver elements as the decisive arms, and rear area C3I etc rather than enemy fielded forces, as the preferred target. Don't take my word for it, read the military manuals. What they are actually doing in Afghanistan isn't in them.<hr></blockquote> Allright, I accept most of your points, and evade by saying that In Afganistan politics play a decisive role. They were supported by the majority only for short while, when people thought they were bringing peace. But after that they have been a suppressive governement that can only be compered to Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot and such. Good riddens. Fighting against a popular governement or movement would be a totally different story - and was, as the Russians found out. Just wars are easier to win than unjust, or maybe, hopefully, the only really winnable wars. Things tend get really bad when both sides are wrong, like in Palestine.