Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Sardaukar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    338

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Sardaukar

    Panzerfaust Question!

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Here:

    http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust2.htm#faust

    From pics you see that Faustpatrone (aka Panzerfaust 30 klein aka Panzerfaust 30K) was with lot smaller warhead than it's successor Panzerfaust 30. 30K didn't even have sights originally, and due to shape of warhead had trouble with sloped armour. Compare to Pzfaust 30 pics below on that page.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    [ December 14, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

    0

    Two questions about German guns

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by rum:

    Wrong.

    IS-2 was "heavy breakthrough" tank

    Wrong.

    Grabin made his ZIS-2 _before_ the war.

    IS-2 was *designed* to be heavy breakthrough tank. Doesn't mean it excelled in it, especially against enemy armour. What is was good at, was to keep up with T-34 and add massive HE firepower.

    Grabin *designed* ZIS-2 before war, didn't make much impact 1941-42, did it...until production got geared up.

    I think you are speaking intentions, and I'm speaking about practicalities. Our perceptions don't cancel each other, just that we look things from different perspective.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    Penetration Range Reports for 75L43 vs T34

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by rexford:

    Seems about right.

    During our research years ago we came across an Allied report where the measured thickness of the SU 100 front lower hull plate was 60mm, not the 45mm design spec.

    U.S. analysis of 45mm plates on Berlin T34/85 showed wide quality range, excellent to poor.

    That makes very much sense. IMHO, QA was never WW II Soviet strongest point.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    Penetration Range Reports for 75L43 vs T34

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    I think lot of T-34 penetration variables could be traced to widely variable factory QA. That is something impossible to prove, though.

    I'm inclined to think that manufacturing processes (especially those in evacuated factories) could be sub-standard. I have no hard evidence about that.

    Indeed, all hard evidence I have had about Soviet equipment manufactured is from late 80's-to present, indicating good reliability and uniform quality..so that'd be contradicting.

    But I think wartime accelerated production is definitely different, and I think it'll remain mystery, since I doubt even Soviet/Russian archives can shed any light to that, since they list only the numbers and quotas. There just were not any way to measure the quality of T-34 you got from factory as far as I know.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    Small glitch in prisoner/score points

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

    Sardaukar,

    Is it possible that the AI moved the troops it captured off the board before the end of the scenario? That would explain why you couldn't find them at the end of the game.

    That'd be possible...but I cannot see anyone missing....dead yes, but not missing.

    Anyhow, it hasn't ruined the game for me :D Wouldn't even have noticed without special circumstances.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    [ November 21, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

    0

    Small glitch in prisoner/score points

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I just played the Line of Defense scenario in demo as Germans, 79-21 victory.

    Anyhow, I noticed that allied had 23 points worth of captured. That intrigued me very much, since I couldn't remember seeing any Germans surrendering, so I saved and checked. No Germans captured, went twice through all units. 2 US squads and 1 crew was captured by Germans.

    I checked both sides twice, and I have save if someone is interested.

    Now, is this related to now infamous "fortifications count as casualties for defender" bug/feature in CMBB ? (See CMBB forum for additional details.)

    I saw that germans did have some barbed wire, so I assume the bug is still there. What alarmed me is that it's counted as "captured", which makes it TWICE as costly for defender having fortifications, TRPs etc. I think that might be even more serious thing than I realized.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    Finns, Mannerheim, and the Continuation War

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Grisha:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />During both the peak moments and the darkest hours of the FDF it was always the politicians who had the last say in the matters pertaining strategy.

    Tero, this is an interesting statement. Are you saying the Finnish government had little say in the determination of the political objectives upon which Finland's military strategy was based upon? Or, that once the Finnish government determined the political objectives for their conflict with the USSR from 1941-1944, the strategic planning of Finnish military operations was out of Finnish politicians' hands? </font>

    0

    Finns, Mannerheim, and the Continuation War

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Grisha:

    Thanks to many of you for your responses. So, the consensus is that the political reality for Finland back then was not to advance much further than the 1939 border (realize some advances were made, but by and large no active participation with German offensive activity). So, for purposes of wargaming it would not be unreasonable to assume limitations with the advancement of Finnish units into the Soviet Union due to reasons outside the scope of military concerns. Would this be generally agreed upon amongst the posters here?

    I think so. When advances were made, they were made to militarily sensible locations. Also, there were aspirations to add Finnish-related people and areas to Finland in East Karelia. That was the main expansionist drive in Finland that time, which did show in the limits of advance. Those areas were considered Finnish in many sense, by population and tradition.

    It's good to note too, while insignificant per se militarily, that there were lot of unease among troops when 1939 border was exceeded. And while AKS (Academic Karelia Society) was popular among educated people and among lot of officers, it's ideas were not really those of society as full, that is to add the Karelian/East Karelian areas to Finland.

    So, as in both historical and wargaming sense, it'd be (IMHO) very difficult for Finns to commit more what we did. It'd mean quite major change in internal "power struggle" and also abandoning some common sense. As others in thread have pointed out, it would have been also a military burden to extent the reach too much.

    So, IMHO, political and military considerations against the extended invasion were so grave, that common sense prevailed easily.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    [ November 16, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

    0

    Finns, Mannerheim, and the Continuation War

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Keke:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sardaukar:

    [Yes. That was definitely considered, not to mention that Nazi racial views didn't encompass Finns into "Nordic people" that their dogma idolized.

    Now could you tell me who considered it in 1941?

    Originally posted by Sardaukar:

    Generally, Finns were more into Western Alliance (Britain/France) pre- and during Winter War, but circumstances forced us to tie our fortunes with German, so to speak.

    Co-operation was easy, since lot of the upper echelon officers were WW I German trained, volunteers in Imperial Prussian Jaeger Battaillon 27 that fought on East Front during WW I.

    One should not forget that many Finnish officers served in the Russian Army before and during WW1, including Mannerheim who commanded the [Russian] 6th Cavalry Corps on the southern front during the late phases of the war. </font>
    0

    Finns, Mannerheim, and the Continuation War

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Frunze:

    Did Finnish political leaders consider whether Finland might have a better chance of a long-term independent existence bordering the USSR than bordering a Greater German Reich stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals?

    Is that a possible factor in their decisions?

    Yes. That was definitely considered, not to mention that Nazi racial views didn't encompass Finns into "Nordic people" that their dogma idolized.

    Generally, Finns were more into Western Alliance (Britain/France) pre- and during Winter War, but circumstances forced us to tie our fortunes with German, so to speak.

    Co-operation was easy, since lot of the upper echelon officers were WW I German trained, volunteers in Imperial Prussian Jaeger Battaillon 27 that fought on East Front during WW I.

    Interestingly, Finns came to consider Germans inferior in combat capability in our area of operations. While Finnish officers sometimes admired Germans about their strict discipline (Finns tend to appear to be as undisciplined bunch..and still do...I should know after my own professional military service in FDF), orienteering/navigation, cross country skiing and certain "initiative" in lower ranks in combat was something even elite units like Gebirgsjaegers never caught really in alien enviroment that was called "claustrophobic forest battles" by them.

    So, while Finns did tie their success to German arms, their combat utility in North was soon seen to be less what Finnish could achieve. That did cool down the prominent pro-German faction in military.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    Finns, Mannerheim, and the Continuation War

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    There were several political decisions made in late summer/autumn 1941 in Finnish political and military High Command. Those decision were made by political leadership of country after listening opinions of military. Lot of them were influenced by Allied backchannel diplomacy.

    1. Stopping direct attack against Leningrad on Isthmus. Troops were put on defensive, which allowed Soviets to shift their reserves and sometimes even line regiments against German thrus. Finns didn't want anything to do with German plans about Leningrad.

    2. Declining to participate to total encirclement of Leningrad via Syväri (Svir) river, around Lake Ladoga. Same thing as above.

    3. Stopping the Finnish attack up north to cut the Murmansk railroad. Gen. Hj. Siilasvuo was given direct otder from Finnish High Command to stop advance towards Louhi. That put him into very difficult position, since he had under his command also German units, mainly SS Mountain Division "Nord", whose commander complained of him directly to Himmler. Siilasvuo couldn't tell the Germans why he did stall the offensive.

    North of that, where Finnish units were under German command, no action was necessary, since chances of German advance over rugged terrain was deemed impossible and German units unsuitable for wilderness warfare.

    If political decision would have been made to participate fully to German attack, there might have been 2 likely consequences. First, cutting the Murmansk off, leaving Arkhangelsk as primary harbour. That would have drastically reduced Lend Lease shipments to Soviet Union, since Arkhangels is blocked by ice for some parts of year. Two, fall of Leningrad. Especially second was deemed definite no-no.

    It wasn't only Mannerheim's decision to limit the advances (and there was not much love lost towards Soviet regime by him, albeit he detested German Nazi regime too), but more like general consensus in Finnish politico-military high echelon. Pro-German faction wasn't large or powwerful enough to enforce different outcome. Even Germans realized that, so while they complained, they decided not to pressurize the Finnish Government about the issues, even when they had perfect means for that, since Finns were largely depending on German grain supply. Ironical for quite agricultural country, but unavoidable due to high percentage of manpower in military service, I seem to recall it was close to 16 % at peak time when 10 % is usually deemed upper limit. That had severe agricultural drawbacks to Finnish economy.

    So...I don't see much chances for larger participation to invasion unless political power would have shifted totally, which is unlikely in democratic country. One of the signs for different objectives was that Finland carefully always denied being "allied" with Germany, but stated being "co-belligent" with Germany.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0

    SS names patch

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    So, to get CDV versions to same shape as US version, you need 1) Schoerner's Anti-Censorship Loader (comes with different languages). That takes care of game engine text part. Then you need 2) one of the swastika packs, to get German flag BMPs of your choise. Then you need 3)Icon Bar MOD, to get rid of WG icons on scenario list. And finally you need 4)updated scenarios, to get rid of "Waffengrenadiers" in scen briefing.

    4 easy steps smile.gif

    All are downloadable or linked on:

    http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/8461/mod.html

    And nope, it's not my site. Donno actually who owns it.

    Cheers,

    M.S.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...