Munter

Customers here in Finland take it for granted that games are mostly sold in English only, but that's OK. We have long since realized that skills in foreign languages are not an option, but a must. That's a reason why TV-series and movies from abroad are not dubbed, but come with subtitles (in movies, both in finnish and swedish simultaniously). I don't think the sales figure would rise if the game came with a manual in Finnish, thank you for the thought, but the best marketing has been a discrete recommendation of the product to one's closest friends ("The first one is always free"). In my case this has backfired. I haven't seen my copy of the game in 6 long weeks since I let one of my buddies give it a shot. M

Yeah, concrete just doesn't deform like that </font>

If you want to know how individual soldiers experienced their battles, read books that are written shortly after the war. As authors grow older they tend to show a more mature picture of themselves and have already "forgotten" a lot of the minor sq***-ups made during that time. If you are looking for facts about actual events and the backrounds thereof, proper history books are to be found first after 15-20 years, or even later after the war when scholars finally get their hands on classified material. War is about people, about fighting, living and surviving with them in a group. Those you kill are not people, but enemies which makes the decision to pull the trigger much easier. Better them than you or your buddies. That's the message you get from the books written within few years after the battles. If books based on personal memories are written after 10 years or more, most of the bitter emotions are already gone and the authors try to figure out why they were over there in the first place, wasting away their youth and wittnessing the deaths of their comerades. They have started to think like their parents who had to send their beloved little children to a war without knowing if they're ever coming back. A good book worth reading (and also written in the late 40's) is "Battlecry" by Leon Uris. It's partly fiction, but well written fiction about Marines in the Pacific. (Sven Hassel is just unrealistic and biased grog-porn in comparison.) Another good one is the "08/15"-trilogy by Kirst describing the life of German artillerists before, during and at the end of the war. And, of course there is also "Unknown Soldier" by Linna describing a Finnish machinegun platoon in the war. They all concentrate on people and their reactions to the drastic events surrounding them.

As it now seems, the only essential needs for a man is a family, a few good friends, some beer from time to time and _a lot of exciting battles to pass the time with_. The Knights of the Round Table would have answered similarily when polled! The world hasn't changed despite of the serious propaganda from the "tree-huggers" and such. Marvellous! There's still hope! M

All right! PC-Superstore in Finland seems to have gotten it also on their shelves. And the mod-CD is included. Nice! M

Without heavy AT-weapons, satchel charges (Finnish variants were wooden boxes with handles, consisting of between 2-8 kilos TNT), molotov cocktails or placing AT-mines under the tracks should do the job. Of course, you also need someone brave enough to give it a shot... In 1941 Finnish lieutenant Pentti used only his sidearm and a couple handfuls of mud to capture an immobilized KV-1. He smeared the prisms with mud and sat on the top of the turret knocking on the hatches with his pistol, suggesting the crew to surrender. And they did, eventually, after few hours of immense persuation. He got a Mannerheim Cross for that and became later the Finnish secretary of defence in the 60's. I served with his grandson in the same armoured infantry batallion. A decent soldier even he. M

Looking good! Especially I love the real-looking treelines against the pale winter sky. It feels like... home. One can almost feel the familiar breeze. The trees will certainly not wave in the wind yet, I recon? There's still something odd with the screenshot with the T-34/76's. Compared with the contrast setting of the terrain the tanks look a bit hazy. Their colours don't seem to have the same intensity or depth as the backround. Soldiers do look alright, however. Should I get my eyes checked or what? M [ February 28, 2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Munter ]

They did grow corn in Ukraine... M

The Finnish Air Force is still using a Finnish swastika on their shoulder straps and unit flags. http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/laplsto/historia.htm If it offends somebodys feelings, so be it. We're not ashamed of using it. M

Why, thank you! It opens a new "human" perspective in the combat situation instead of wrapping it up in all this frequent techno-Mumbo-Jumbo, doesn't it? Actually, I got the article in printed form from my ex-girlfriend a few years back. She suggested that I started looking for other hobbies and used this article as an authoritative and warning quote. Boy, did she fail!

Here is some additional info of this subject. Do you personally know anyone who would qualify? http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/MayJun99/Pierson.htm

As my first contribution to this great site I recommend you visit this link: http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html There are some pictures and first-hand experiences of the T34-85.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The point, apparently lost, was that Finland was between a rock and a hard place - I guess Tero got it, anyway.<hr></blockquote> It started with the debate about the war in Lappland against the Germans, whether it will be included in the game or not. Apparently not. And then, again, I got carried away. Sorry about that. Anyway. My uncle was there as a young conscript. He told us later on that the situation had felt more or less surreal. They were supposed to drive away with the minimum of troops the remnants of the German army which they seldom even saw and at the same time they were ordered to hide away submachine guns, rifles, mortars, grenades and ammunition in case of a coup d'état by the Soviets or by the newly revived domestic Communist Party. No wonder they were a bit distracted as no-one could decide who the actual enemy was. He relocated the weapon-caches in the early 50's but they had already been emptied by someone. Or something. Most probably by the Army. We do still have a nice Mauser K/98 he ehh... smuggled back home after the war. It got a legal status first in the 60's and shoots pretty well. Tero: I have no idea how many attempts were made against Mannerheim's life during the war, but if you do, please share it with us preferably with some backround information of the would-be assassins. The subject sounds interesting and new to me. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: What if you fail in that endeavour and are subjected to the full wrath of the Russians with all their passions ? If there's any doubt of winning, why should one attack in the first place? Why not make the "best" of it in case one decides to invade? At that time , summer of '41, the Finnish politicians KNEW that Germany would win and sent the troops over the border. Just about nobody liked either the German politics or the discipline in Wehrmacht. As a matter of fact, most of the people in the higher officies were either pro-British or pro-Swedish, but you certainly knew this already, didn't you? As it now seems, the Finnish strategy was to get back the areas lost in the Winter War, and then some in the Eastern Karelia. When Germany "inevitably" would win, Finland would secure the booty cheaply without losing their own soldiers. A stowaway nation, of a sort. The help from the Finnish side would yet have been decisive in the siege of Leningrad. Mannerheim didn't care but took his chances. And lost. Big time. It was first afterwards some hang-arounds founded the myth of a "great and long-sighted political realist who was wise enough not to bother the Russians any more than necessary and led Finland to the glorious and wonderful era of everlasting friendship and mutual trust between these two peace-loving nations". A load of c***, he just s****ed it up and he knew it. Finland lost that war and nobody is stupid enough to want a rematch, period. Most of his officers were trained by and had served in the Imperial German army during WWI. Yet there was no plot or mutiny to depose him and jump into the Nazi band wagon for real. Why ? Unbreakable loyalty. That's always been a virtue for an officer. Nobody put a bullet in Hitler either despite of the several chances. For instance, Stauffenberg is still appreciated by the politicians and despised by the officers. He used a time-bomb and not a firearm and tried to get away with it instead of taking full personal responsibility. Oh well, he got it anyway in the end. The way you spell Turku would suggest your narrow gene pool originated from the western shore of the Gulf of Bothnia. How do you spell Viipuri ? Vyborg ? <hr></blockquote> Oh, back in the golden days it was still called "Wiipuri" . The reason for the spelling is that i happen to live on the southern side of the river Aura, that's "Åbo". The northern side is usually regarded as "Turku". As for the gene pool from my fathers side, there was a Swedish grunt from the army of Carl XII who stayed in Finland in the beginning of 18th century after THAT war. My mother's heritage comes mostly from the Jewish immigrants in Karelia during the Russian epoch. So, what does that make me? An Unter-Finn? Let's keep in touch! [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: As I understand it, Finland was primarily only involved with the Axis fight against the Soviets in order to regain the territory it had lost during the Winter War. After that, Finland seemed to be pretty much satisfied with their situation. When the tides of war turned, their only realistic options were to be obliterated by the Soviets (or at least lose much of their territory), or make concessions in a peace treaty and live to tell about it. They were never any great friends of Germany and its ideology, afaik. <hr></blockquote> Exactly. The question is: what was the point in jumping into the war if one wasn't fully prepared to do every possible sacrifice to obliterate the threat represented by the Soviet Union? From a sheer military point of view Finland should have taken part in capturing Leningrad and cutting off the railway connections close to Arkangel thus sealing off Murmansk for good. Then at least one of the strategic goals for the first year of the war would have been secured. The following (German) attack through a secondary route could have been based on the good railway tracks leading straight to Moscow ---> one more strategic goal achieved. But no. Mannerheim, having previously been a Russian officer for 40 years, kept back his troops. Germany would have lost anyway after the U.S. of A. entered the war, but the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe would never have taken place. I suppose Winston Churchill would have accepted the results when both the Communism and the Nazism were wiped out simultaniously. The real Russia would have risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union 50 years before than in reality. Well, we would still had been on the wrong side but the retaliation from the Western Allies could not have been worse than that later done by the Soviets. I know, I know. There isn't much point in jumping into some hasty conclusions over the past and mostly forgotten opportunities (the general forum would be more suitable for this subject). Anyway, the results of the war, as they are, did wonders for the Finnish narrow gene pool (including mine) when the refugees from Karelia were re-settled. [ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Munter ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Barbarossa is the obvious one of course but I mean Rumanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Finnish troops fighting against the Germans later in the war. And I do not mean in the Red Army OOB but on their own. [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: tero ]<hr></blockquote> Err..., I don't know. The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. The only good thing with the Finns fighting Germans was that it wasn't decisive and there weren't much casualties worth the name (few hundred in 6 months). A shameful era in the Finnish history if you ask me, necessary or not. Now, don't tell me I take it too personally

If this topic has already been under discussion elsewhere, so ignore it. Anyway, on the eastern front there were several occasions where russian soldiers "played dead" among the corpses and opened fire against their enemies at point blank range. Now, this was extremely frustrating for the germans who ended up shooting at obviously dead, but still suspicious russians in order to be sure they would not be getting shot at from behind. I suppose there will not be possible to give such orders for the troops. Or is it? It just would be... sort of interesting to see how it affected the gameplay and tactics used by the players. Munter

Finns, of course. They (we) never surrendered. As for the ancient finnish warcry "hakkaa päälle" I must add that it actually means just "beat them up". The cavalry units using this came from the south-western parts of Finland where people speak a dialect close to the Estonian language with swedish construction. So, "hakkaa päälle" is nothing more than a local expression for the swedish "hacka på".