Sardaukar

www.combatmission.com has a chat room where you can usually find TCP/IP opponents. Cheers, M.S.

überbump again

I have noticed, after playing lot's of QBs with same setting (1000 pts, ME, medium map) that time to computer to work through resolving turn seems to increase 20 times when map is quite open and clear. Amount of units is about the same and I get huge difference between more restricted LOS maps and open maps. I admit that my Cel 500 with 192 megs of memory is low-end..but I'm bit curious. Is it because computer has to make lot more LOS checks on open map ? Also scrolling is bit jerky with those maps during orders phase...but when watching video it's smooth...I guess that means it's not graphics thing. Go figure... Cheers, M.S.

Few things to toss my oar in too Lack of ammunition was not that big problem during 1941-44. During Winter War it was the main thing hampering efficiency of Finnish artillery. One Russian Army on Karelia Isthmus did shoot as much ammo as Finns had in their whole pre-war stock within one day. Finnish artillery was almost always very accurate. Nothing involving humans is perfect, though..but it was still very accurate and responsive. Even Soviet reports from Isthmus during summer 1944 state that fact and importance of artillery in those battles. During Winter War captured Soviet officer asked: "Since your artillery usually hits it's target with first rounds, why don't you shoot more ?" Reason for that is above. One important factor is also that shells from different units were arriving as simultaneously to target as possible. Since most casualties from artillery fire happen when targetted soldiers have had no time to take cover, that has utmost importance. It maximizes the effect when used on attacking enemy. Amount of ordnance used has less effect if it's used more sporadically. In Winter War against one sector of Finnish defences, Russians used 34 000 arty rounds during one day. Result was 2 wounded Finns. Intense, concentrated and quick barrage has lot more effect. As to compare Finnish and German artillery..that is almost a slur Frankly, (no offence to Germans) their doctrine or use of artillery was not in par with British, American or Finnish practices. Very rarely they could get quick support from other assets than what was under their direct commmand. I guess it's because their doctrine was very offensive-centered, so defensive tactics were not as refined (they still did OK, though). Cheers, M.S.

Some of the problem people seem to have about Finnish "victory" in WW II is probably caused by different definitions of victory. To Finns in WW II, starting from Oct 1939, keeping our independence and national sovereignity was the primary goal. Nothing else went over that, not before, during or after the wartime period. Since that was always achieved, and achieved by fighting against large odds, we Finns definitely think that as victory. There were 3 capital cities in Europe during WW II belonging to warfighting nations that were never occupied by enemy : London, Moscow and Helsinki. We do consider that as victory. When it comes to destroying one's enemy militarily like Allies did to Germany, Italy and Japan...we cannot claim to have done that to Soviet Union. But none of other nations that fought Soviet Union during WW II remained either politically or militarily independent after war. That achievement we definitely think as victory. And, according to Soviet/Russian documents and archives...it wasn't because they were not trying. Esplicit orders and resource allocations both during 1939 and 1944 tell their story. But, they were stopped...twice. Now, I'm asking only that historically correct equipment would be available. So called "überfinn" thing that people think we are wanting is totally ridiculous. Some people seem to think we shpuld be lot weaker than it was/is in reality..I'm just questioning why ? No minor modification/addition of units is going to raise Finns in par with Germans and Soviets and it's not asked nor desired..since it wasn't equipment that brought those achievements. Now, after career in Finnish army (lot of it in signals), I can tell that even nowadays Finnish brigade has as much signals troops in it's artillery regiment than rest of the brigade..and artillery is considered the most important to have good communications with infantry battaillons in front. That hasn't changed from 1939-45. Winter War taught us especially how important artillery is, especially in defence. Those lessons were put in use 1941 and due equipment purchases Finnish Army was massively more capable of supporting front line during 1944 than it was in Winter War or even in 1941. Every eyewitness account says that when Finnish artillery was available and was used, it was quite decisive. Plenty of references have been quoted but I don't recall any sources to oppose that. If I have to go to Military Archives in Helsinki and dig dozens of pages of reference materiel numbers and thousands of pages of war diaries to convince people that "feel" opposite without references..then it's pointless. No matter what I do can convince people who has their mind set opposite. I could even drag actual members of Arty Corps FOs and Infantry during 1944 to testify and people would still complain. Go figure. Cheers, M.S. [ October 21, 2002, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Soviets were really trying hard to crush Finnish defence during summer 1944. When they were stopped in Tali-Ihantala area, pressure was moved to flanks, resulting heavy battles in Vuosalmi and Gulf of Viipuri (Vyborg). After that, since those didn't gave breakthrough, operational focus was shifted from Isthmus to north of Lake Ladoga. There Soviets managed to get quite deep over the 1940 border in area of Ilomantsi. Unfortunately for them, terrain there was less suitable for mechanized warfare. That resulted 2 Soviet divisions getting cut to pieces and almost annihilated around Ilomantsi area. Fortunately for Finland, Soviets concluded that further operations would be too costly and started to shift their forces back against Germans. But they were trying very hard during those couple of months. Cheers, M.S.

This is quite entertaining thread. But what about my request about some "rare beasts" (and some not so rare) like T-28 and Komsomolets ? Could the Finns get radio FO ? (I guess that, if not already available, would resolve most gripes people have with Finn arty). Finns and Germans had quite strange relationship before and during WW II. Lot of the higher officers were ex-volunteers of Imperial Prussian Jaeger Battaillon 27 during WW I and thus German trained. Lot of Russian trained officers were pushed out of office during 20's and 30's. Despite that and continuous military co-operation, relations were not politically very warm. Adolf and his cronies were not well liked and especially Mannerheim was known about his dislike of Nazi leadership. Cheers, M.S. [ October 19, 2002, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

What about correcting Finnish Pz IV H to J and changing availability ? Good job, BTS, by the way. M.S.

Heh..this thread is degenerating into slugfest between Finns and others. "Time to circle wagons" . Now...my proposal of changes to CMBB inventory was to include following things: - JU 87 dive bomber for Germans in Finland, June-July 1944 -FW 190 F, ditto - KV-1 m42 and KV-1E from summer 1942(only one each, but they were used as lead vehicles in armoured column's advance) -T-28 m38 and T-28E, first from start and second from late summer 1941. - T-20 Komsomolets gun tractor from start -somewhat better FOs for Finns (not asking them to be better than others, but they sure were not that much worse than others). -ISU-152, July 1944 (this I can live without, however) Now...all that is historical and is backed by references. Nothing in that makes Finns "überfinns" or imbalance the game. What I don't understand is the resistance to minor changes that are totally feasible (at least to me). But what are the historical references not to include them ? And for what reason ? Cheers, M.S.

Eh...I doubt that could be modelled in game anyway. And it'll be best solved with different experience levels. What was historical was that Finns were generally better motivated, trained and led than most of their counterparts...but not always. But it's damn hard to model in computer game, especially things that are not measured in millimeters or kilograms or meters/sec. If Finnish arty would be in par with others, that's OK...but I'm not that interested about artillery issue...it seems to work relatively well even now. I'd just like to see "übervehicles" like T-28 and Komsomolets gun tractor . Cheers, M.S. [ October 18, 2002, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Heck, what is wrong about giving Finns fast response artillery ? About everyone else has it, and I'd be hard to convince that we lagged behind when our artillery doctrine was among the cutting edge in world during WW II. None of that is "game killer" though...but artillery was one deciding factor in combat in Finnish front during 1941-44. Especially during summer 1944. And what the heck is this "überfinn" thing anyway ? Just asking to be treated fairly in game aspects with same equipment as others have and what is historically correct is not imbalancing the game. Getting smashed in CMBB as Finn is as easy as with other nations. Heh, if finnish units are an issue...why not remove all air, artillery and tanks ? Would that satisfy those who want us to fight other hand tied behind back ? Cheers, M.S.

That didn't do much good for us either. Afterwards units and army generally was critisized for not fortifying enough and concentrating to irrelevant things during static period of 1942-44. 3 defence lines, Front line was adequate, VT-line was half-finished and VKT-line was mostly just line on map. Cheers, M.S.

So shouldn't that be the same in the game? Rather than relying on 0bertanks, 0bertillery and 0bertoothpicks the Finnish players should use what is at hand to best effect. The "historical realism" clamoured for by some seems to lead to a situation where every situation defaults to a Finnish victory. Since I proposed that in this thread I can't complain, but I think the issue is 1) The Finns on this forum always seem to be clamoring for unique vehicles being included, because "the army had one of them, representing 15% of the armoured force", "it was used against enemy infantry in at least one engagement", hey there are Sturmtigers, why can't we have T-50s :mad: " 2) These vehicles represent unique items and so aren't really representative of anything. So what were STAVKA's goals? Knocking Finland out of the war, undermining the situation of army group north and reaquiring the territory lost to Finland (part of the Ishtmus, Penchanga, some land above Leningrad) [sorry couldn't resist ] Good on you, but how much is that in game terms? </font>

You'd be surprised what stuff some people in FDF classify I once got a manual that was a copy of publicly available book and of course...it was stamped with "confidential" . Cheers, M.S.

Heh, that reminds me of old joke about Russian nightmare: "Border clashes between China and Finland..." . What some people do not understand is that "magical" achievements in Winter War and Continuation war were not caused by some superhuman feats. What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability. If there were ample equipment and human resources, I doubt that tactics and doctrine would have been as refined. I don't understand what is the beef about including tanks that were used historically, given the rarity rules. If it was used, it's OK. I doubt that anyone would buy +900 % rarity KV-1s in QB as Finn . About artillery...preregistering/preplotting terrain was and still is usual practice in Finnish military. Basicly..every square km of Finnish soil is already presurveyed for artillery use, mainly by registering height differences. That is no big military secret...and useful also to road and bridge builders . You know, only so called "stategic strike/operation" made by STAVKA that failed to achieve it's goals was operation against Finland in 1944. Stopping those who later smashed Germans in Operation Bagration was no small feat. Either we were superhumans (flattering, but I doubt) or our tactics and doctrine were sound and effective. Either that or Russians were really incompetent...which I and lot of others (especially Russians) would disagree strongly. In Summer 1944 they were already starting to surpass the Germans in matters of quality and competence in manpower, tactics and operational skills. Cheers, M.S.

Thanks...I wish I had seen this before I posted the follow-up I'd like those things to be available, but with high rarity. That'd prevent them to be abused in QBs but used by scenario designers. After all, they were used. Cheers, M.S. [ October 16, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Sorry that availability table is bit hard to read, but I think it can be deciphered . What I'd like to see as add-ons are: Komsomolets gun tractors (as you see, over hundred in use, huge number for Finns), KV-1E, KV-1 m42, T-28 m38, T-28 E..and PZ IV H (never seen here) changed to J. Fw 190F for Gemans here (not sure if they have), JU-87 dive bomber and "the most glaring mistake" ...Finnish Me-109 G6 had only one 20 mm cannon instead of 3, since wing cannons were removed. Overall, great job from BTS...but there is always room for us nitpickers Besides, some battles are impossible to model without certain equipment. Forgot this: 5/41 7/42 7/43 6/44 12/44 T-28 m38/T-28E 2 7 7 7 7 Cheers, M.S.

I'd like to see rare tanks modelled and they should have severe rarity "penalty". It'd be good for scenario designers though. More Finnish area CMBB errata: Luftwaffe unit Kuhlmey "Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey" (arrived to Finland 16 June), essential air support in battle of Tali-Ihantala. FW-190Fs and JU-87 dive bombers. Thus, there should be German JU-87s available in June-July 1944 (no tank busters). Tables of tank availability from "Finnish armoured vehicles" ISBN 952-5026-09-4 , page 191 (I'm not quoting all of that.. ) 31.5.41 1.7.1942 1.7.43 1.6.44 12/44 T-26 m31 10 12 8 2 1 OT-26 2 2 1 1 1 T-37A 29 21 - - - T-38/T38M2 13 12 19 19 3 Komsomolets 56 98 184 182 101 BT-7m35/37 53 23 23 - - BT-42 - - 13 18 10 T-34m40/41 - 3 4 4 9 T-34/85 - - - - 9 T-50 - - 1 1 1 KV-1E m41 - - 1 1 1 KV-1 m42 - 1 1 1 1 Landsverk II - 6 6 6 6 Stug. III G - - - 30 46 Pz IV J - - - - 14 Cheers, M.S.

Actually two were captured and put back to use, one was lost, but the other one survived, was used as a gun tractor after the war and is now in Parola painted with russian colours.</font>

I just had a veteran 75 mm Pak 40 to KO 1 IS-2 and 5 T-34/85 M44s. I'd say that was very cost-effective. Cheers, M.S.

Me too please. Tero seems fairly adamant that there were significant differences, I'd be interested on his thoughts on what those differences were, and how they came about. Regards JonS</font>

I did a bit of testing against Soviet pillboxes with different weapons. KO'd them with different weapons (to see what works and what doesn't). Used a flamethrower against one and it exploded (plenty of ammo and hand grenades inside, I guess) and explosion pinned/routed lot of my infantry units around. Very nice feature, took me bit of surprise. Cheers, M.S.

About Pz-IV J...they never saw combat against Soviets, but if it's planned to include Finns vs. Germans in Lapland, then they are feasible. Shipment days and modification done is in my earlier post . Source is same as before: Finnish Armoured Vehicles 1917-1997, ISBN 952-5026-09-4 Cheers, M.S.

By the way, if anyone wants my "Kuuterselkä" scenario that I just finished, email me to: sardaukar67@yahoo.com. It's vaguely related to Finnish Assault Gun Battaillon's counterattack 14.-15.6.1944 after Soviet had breached VT-line in Kuuterselkä. Cheers, M.S.

Same book that I quoted earlier says about Pz IV Ausf. J : page 21: "...aid also resulted in the delivery of 15 PZ-IV Ausf. J tanks (Ps 221-1 to 15) in three batches on 24 August (8), 26 August (2) and 27 August (5)." Year is of course 1944. page 93 picture text says: "The hull side skirts were removed but the skirts around turret were retained". Finnish part of text says also that reason for removal was that skirts didn't stay attached very well. Cheers, M.S.