Foxbat

[EDIT] I feel my post was way to quarrelsome in nature, I will post a better one soon [ October 20, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

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] [ October 19, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

"No Adolf, I have told you a thousand times.. We CAN'T FIT THOSE MORTARS IN THE HALFTRACK.. and no I don't care if you've made yourself Supremeuebercommandeur des Armees it just won't fit! I'm taking of the TOE as of now, and I don't want to hear about them ever again you understand, it's bad enough that our troops are freezing in winter, dying althrough the year and we've hadn't had a strategic victory since you fired Erik.. there is no need to have three guys in each platoon running through the Tundra to keep up with our mechanised forces."

The continuation war it involves Finns and I think russians, it's probably called something like the western front in russia (or second finnish war, something like that).

To each his own? Aren't reviewers supposed to review the game rather than saying "I don't like turn-based games, so this game sucks ass". Everytime I read this "critisism" of turn-based games I am reminded of an "interview" a local pop-magazine did with a heavy metal band, time and time again questions were asked along the lines of "why do you emphasise the heavyness so much", "isn't pop(!) music about making songs that people like", "why don't you sing in a more normal way".. ad nauseam. I mean get over it already! There is no way a turn-based simulation is going to approach an RTS or "the Satanic Slayers of Gondor" the backstreet boys, give your review copy to someone else if you don't like the genre :mad: And specifically you should not say in the review that is bad within its genre, if you don't like it because you don't like the genre (now that makes sense don't you think). [ October 19, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

Ah feel your pain [bites lip, tries to look presidential]. I am more than a little frustrated at the fact that after 7 pages of discussion most of the "problem" turns out to be caused by a misinterpreation of the slow attribute given to wire FOs. And yet this myth of disadvantadged wire operators still lingers on... Not to mention the still repeated demand that Finns be given Fausts (already on the list for the next patch), the consistent reiteration of finnish artillery doctrine (albeit in good faith on Vilho's part) as if it existed in a vacuum, etc. Besides these Finns are hardier than I expected, you'd think that my deluge of posts would ultimatly numb them into to submission, but no..... [EDIT] Every time I edit my post I introduce more spelling errors.. either I'm dyslcix* or it some kind of conspiracy :eek: * I meant to spell that wrong in an attempt at humor, it came out deifferent then I intended though... [ October 19, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

And the history of the soviet 1944 offensive you posted clearly confirms that view Because while it is in itself a good overview of what happened and provides a good narrative, it also shows its innate prejudice in several things. For example a lot of thought is spared to give praise to Mannerheim in his infinite wisdom and the finnish ability and flexibility in general on one hand, while the soviets on the other hand are consistently characterised as being without initiative or creativity (eg doing everything by the text book, no tactical or operational imagination, doing everything based on calculation, ridiculing the alleged faith in calculation above everything else) even where this is obviously contradicted elsewehere in the same text (eg the beach landing, using "finnish" tactics, etc). Most debatable are the author's second-guessing of everything the soviets did (using 20/20 hindsight to point out how much better they could have done..), his consistent portrayal of the soviets inability to achieve their (alleged) operational goals as defeats, and his conclusion that the soviet were frightened into halting the offensive by the Überfinns*. Even though in his introduction he points out that the fighting was neccesitated by the fact that the Finns were unwilling to accept the offered armistice, and the war ended as Finns accepted these very harsh soviet conditions. Still even though I have just listed a veritable mountain of objections I found the article to be interesting, entertaining factual and illuminating Thanks for posting it. * "In its tactical wisdom and flexibility the Finnish attack was a final sign to Russians to not to continue attacks anymore." [ October 19, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I thought it was rather funny coincidence that I was looking for their review of the general staff study and stumbled on the exact same text I had read not 10 seconds before Perhaps I should have quoted their quote of Glantz' forword: The volume, however, is not without fault and error. Either intentionally or coincidentally, while opening new horizons on the famous battle, the work also perpetuates myths. It does so by over-glorifying the scale of the Red Army's victory and by magnifying the grandeur of its accomplishments at Kursk. For example, long before the postwar histories did so, it overstates the scope and impact of the tank battle at Prokhorovka. In particular, like other classified studies and postwar works, it overestimates the strength of the Germans and understates or simply neglects the ultimate terrible cost of the victory. Therefore, while of immense value, the work must be weighed accordingly. I've found the latter to be true of almost any source or book on world war 2 history [and many other subjects]. You always have to take the bad with the good I'm afraid and weigh sources against each other, rather than dismiss out of hand all sources from one party (or even all sources from a given country over a period of eighty years!). [ October 19, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

JonS, a more generous way of making your point would be to say that these issues exist, but are in no way limited to (or exagerated for) finnish artillery Btw: I would like to point out in particular that no evidence at all exist that would indicate that wire-FO's are inferior in any other aspect then movement speed.

Interestingly the very site* that you got this info from also has a review of Glantz' translation of the soviet general staff study. Now given that they point out this "interesting" bit of info on german tank strength in several reviews you'd think that they would warn you to avoid it like the plague Apparently not: "Glantz recently began work on a series of self-published volumes designed explicitly for a rather narrow market segment. For his more general audience, these are almost certainly overkill. For serious military specialists, academic researchers, wargame designers and the like, these are priceless gems. The first of the gems is the translated and annotated Soviet report on the Battle of Kursk." "To his credit -- and our delight -- Glantz has undertaken the task of self-publishing these highly specialized volumes. The downside of this otherwise commendable effort is that the relatively minuscule number of copies he expects to sell has imposed production limitations to the extent that it is necessary to print these as photocopied desktop publications. [..] While it's not possible to whole-heartedly recommend these volumes to more than the audience for which they are intended, it is possible to hope that enough specialists will discover and acquire them to keep the project rolling. " Quotes from the review of Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study, by Glantz and Orenstein. With regard to the 600 tank SS attack on Prokhovorka they note that "Fortunately, Glantz has annotated the text with explanatory footnotes and offers some cautionary advice in his Foreword." So in conclusion I would say that I am quite justified in using TOT times from this book as accurate * At least that's what I assume, because it has the exact same quotes in the exact some order The situation isn't all bad, except that both books are expensive, published in small numbers (ie they'll disappear from the market) and rather unreadable. Can't someone take a few years of to distill all this info in one on-going narrative? Please... [ October 19, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

That is a particualrly good source because it doesn't use any "tainted" soviet sources Seriously though, is anyone else frustrated about the fact that you don't have one definitive book on Kursk? As it stands we have two main contenders: on one hand we have Glantz's Kursk book filled with dry day-to-day reports of the soviets and on the other we have the Zetterling book that provides the same data for the other side... [ October 19, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

Given the fact that there was no option to take the german guns into production this is actually meaningless info. That's because they are firing tests of the guns, obviously the intent here is to determine the effectiveness of the guns rather than the whole tank. Ah I see those Evil Soviets set out to falsify the results by using what real-life examples of Panthers they had on hand, rather than doing the right thing (going forward in time by 50 years and calculating the actual effectiveness of the gun against Panther armor and comparing this with combat reports). So? It happened. And while it is easy to chastise the "totalitarian" soviet personell foe "Falsifying" this data by using actual Panthers it is very hard to stand up to them and say "so we've seen it work on actual Panthers out to the max theoretical range, but I've calculated that that is impossible. Therefore you must rewrite your report to be mopre truthfull". If that is an argument to believe that these documents were falsified then I suggest you start a crusade against the use of American data, as any comparison between the glorious results of the 76mm gun in tests and it's impotence in actual combat situations shows the painfull difference between the fraudulent american test plate and actual german armor.

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.

Look Hans we know about your leg, but you got to ride in France, now it's your turn to walk. And if you don't we'll have to start the mission with enough casualties to make room in the vehicles... and you know what that means.

While that is true I doubt that that is the reason that 3 guys of the platoon don't get a ride

That's historical realism for you In reality it would fit of course as the mortar team would be split among the 3 squads.. I guess BFC will just have to throw in a Kubelwagen for the HQ [EDIT]Crud, the HQ goes in the Command HT of course. And a truck is overkill for one mortar (and with 3 mortars/company trucks integral to the company is odd too ). I guess you could split one inf squad and leave a half-squad behind to 'bring up the rear'. [ October 18, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I know the report, but I have never heard about it being falsified. So I would like to know more about it how and why was it falsified? (was one target of less quality armour, or were they both sub-quality).

I have no idea as I haven't read the whole thing, but there were several studies and IIRC Glantz translated at least 2. Besides I would think that for technical data it shouldn't be to far off. That is just BS (excuse my french), of course there will be errors, misinterpretation and prejudice. But that goes for any source from any country, from any time. And we can't very well do any historic study without relying on sources. Do you trust germans sources, do you trust any sources? After all in a democracy, like in a dictatorship, knowledge and the interpretation of facts is power. It is (or should be) well known that even in open democratic societies reports are "augmented", "reinterpreted" or simply surpressed. That would argue against the use of sources from a democratic society. [ October 18, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

Thanks for the response, now that I have 'official' confirmation I am once again 100% sure of my mental health And yes the slow/fast attribute appears to be the source of this confusion. I don't think there is any real reason to have radio FOs for the Finns as they were not used as a matter of doctrine. And with most units in static positions for most of the war there wasn't much need unless the wires were knocked out (which doesn't happen in CMBB anyway). Here is an example of that happening in the russian army: "The telephone communications were interrupted from the very beginning of the bombardment. Radio operators Ivanov and Burenkov, who had arrived with Metelsky the day before, immediately deployed their A7-A radio set and contacted the battery. As soon as the bombardment subsided a little, a telephone operator Sukhanov was sent on my order to check the line. Time passed, communications were not getting restored, although it was clear that the break was close to the NP (observation post) -- the Germans did not fire at our rear. Then Vania Skorogonov crawled to the line, quickly restored the connection and dragged Sukhanov back with him -- he was lying there alive and well. By that time Metelsky was already giving orders to Shutrik by radio. Nevertheless, as soon as the firing platoons' call sign "Bukhta" ("Bay") could be heard through the crackle and rustle of cables being connected, the battery commander abandoned radio and came over to the telephone operators. Either he, like many during that time, mistrusted radio communications or had an exaggerated impression of the capabilities of radio homing." Evgenii Monyushko, Divisional Artillery. Pulling front duty as FO. I was under the impression that the "Korja" was used for more than that, but I guess we'll have to wait for the fact-finding mission to tell us more about it That is good news. I wonder how long it will take before our Pavlovian response is strong enough that we will drool at the mere utterence of the words "engine rewrite" [ October 18, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

Actually we are, this info was classified for a reason. No. These general staff studies are internal documents, the intention is to analyse and learn from these things. It wouldn't make much sense if they only contained wildly off-the mark misinformation conceived for propaganda use And vice versa I don't think the Ivan in the street would be to impressed if Pravda proudly declared the TOT of preplanned fire to be 1.5-3 minutes.. unless he was a grog of course Anyway these figures merely show that under comparable circumstances artillery delays between armies are in the same ballpark.

Actually neither travels at the speed of light That's even worse than the soviets had; "As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.” The Battle of Kursk, The Soviet General Staff Study, 1944. Quoted in this thread Guess you shot yourself in the foot there, I'm going to plead for Finnish arty to be less responsive. As it is it is way to close to soviet times Please, for the love of God shows us one thing that proves that "fast" FOs have shorter delays (either quote the manual, quote someone from BF.C or show us test results) because I can't believe you're sticking to that story. Oh and 1min sounds about right for mortars with LOS to target, so if Finnish mortar FOs with LOS to target do indeed get 6 minute delays then you may have a point.. but it would be nice if someone could confirm that. The problem here isn't that you're seeing things in black & white, you are looking only at the white. If you only look at the finnish "historical data" without contrasting it with anything else it is always going to look like they deserve "force specific modifiers". For example did you know that the Finns had special, improved procedures for blocking fires? I guess that's a bonus right there, and I could go on and on.. [ October 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

I think this is specifically mentioned in Red Star/Black Cross, I will look up a reference.

The easy, and available route is of course to make Finns regular/veteran and the russkie's conscript/green except where better is appropriate (and for the early years the russians are automatically "worsely" trained and led anyway ). That's because the whole idea that Finnish arty is worse than others appears to be a figment of the imagination. The only thing that should, possibly, change is the inclusion of the "Korja" And there is a lot the player can do to make his finnish arty act in a historically accurate, and effective, way. 1) Buy light artillery over heavy. 2) Buy light artillery in preference to mortars. 3) Buy TRPs. 4) Use observed fire. 5) Focus your artillery fire. 6) Use light artillery where you would normally use mortars And most importantly of all, set your artillery asset up with the greatest possible care at the start of the game (a few well placed TRPs can really run the enemies day). If at all possible set your FO's in such a way that they won't have to move during the game, and if they have too work out in advance where you want your them to go.

I'm pretty sure it is, in fact I'm pretty sure youre whole "we are soooo disadvantadged" airbubble is based on nothing but prejudice and misunderstanding. Did you actually test your mortar-FO example? Did you test the delays for other types of FOs? Did you test to see what caused the differences? NO you just assume that slow means long delay. Period. If you had bother to look at the earlier discussi0on I linked you would have seen that everyone else's experience is the exact opposite of your claims eg: Note that he refers to an actual test, not what he believes to be the case. The story that follows is about why wire-spotters move slowly, and most radio spotters at medium speed. NOT why they have the long delays that you think they have.

That's what I wanted to illustrate, what makes the article potentially interesting is the not the (alleged) nationalistic spin, but that it refers to actual documents and evidence of what we all know but pretended to have forgotten (on both sides) during the cold war. 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). [ October 18, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]