undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
Adam1,
usually people with exceptional talent in abstract thinking have trouble in transmitting their observations to other people. most of the other guys simply do not observe that the abstract layer exist at all, and for them it's more than odd that the other fellow is so stuck up with his strange unpractical opinions and principles. for this other fellow however the quest for purity and perfection of principles is the more essential and interesting part. he doesn't really care about practical issues. for him the practical issues are just data from which to derive further enrichment of the abstract layer. though, this doesn't mean that he wouldn't get good kicks from seeing the abstract principles manifest themselves on the practical level of things. he doesn't really care about the T-34, but he enjoys the T-34 when it embodies some abstract princple -- e.g. economical production and thus strength in numbers.
as for your examples, i don't know how relevant they are. of course if A gives better results than B, then A is to be chosen - no need to mess theories or doctrines into it. the careful attritionist is more than happy to sacrifice 10 men if by doing so the enemy will lose 20. in all battles there is the bigger picture for which the smaller components are more or less sacrificing themselves. it's inherent to warfare.
what comes to your question of how one can speed up advance or deal with seemingly reckless order, there are at least a couple of typical responses.
to speed up advance you can simply order your units to attack again (typically units do only hour or two of active combat per day, if even that). if you have reserves you can commit them to the attack. if you have units doing partial or full flank protection you can commit them to the attack. if terrain makes your support arms less effective you can transform them to direct attack forces, same goes to specialist units like recon and such. if your attack was previously broken into multiple thrusts, you can combine them into a single thrust on the sector that holds most potential for you. you can narrow down your attack sector. you can ask for some additional forces. you can try to better coordinate your actions with your neighboring units. and so forth.
what comes to reckless orders from superiors, a common solution was to adjust the order when you pass it to your subordinates. e.g. you receive an order for full attack, but you order your subordinates to just probe.
-
heh, talk about pearls and swine. Adam, if you are interested in the basics of various theories there are plenty of free articles discussing them online. just google it up.
the point about smaller scale units not having the big picture is a bit moot, since even on the largest scale the picture is far from clear.
all things being equal, it's of course better to follow the pull.
sometimes rushing is a sound approach - a method of countering the strenghts or utilizing the weaknesses of the opponent.
-
Finns had some initial problems in adjusting to changed Soviet tactics in defensive battles of summer 1944.Originally posted by Adam1:Was anyone doing it efficiently? Or at least writing about alternatives to contemporary theories? Also, do you think much of this has been absorbed since?
traditionally Soviets had just pressed forward as far as possible until they were stopped by Finns. typically Finns had no problems in stopping & eliminating these kinds of attacks.
in summer 1944, instead of just pressing forward, the Soviets would stop their advance after initial success and form "hedgehog" defenses (all around or at least 180 degree defence, infantry forming the outer edge with tanks supporting on the inner layer or further back). once Finns launched their expected counterattack/assault, and once the Soviets had defeated it (at that point Finnish infantry had no special AT weaponry like panzerfausts, not to mention having tank support, so they had little chances of being succesful with hasty counterassaults), the Soviet units would resume their advance.
EDIT: i realize that the described Soviet tactic had little to do with overcoming AT-guns, but it did show attitude that favored attrition over haste (even if that attitude soon died out once their general offensive stalled).
[ April 11, 2008, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
yeah i have played those. with such setting things work like one would expect. it's harder to get realistic results in more open maps. after all, most of the tanks were not destroyed by ambushing them on a forest road. but i guess it has more to do with CM being a game played by humans than CM having some failings as such.Originally posted by JasonC:URD - Rune made some realistic Finland maps that showed the usefulness of infantry close assault against armor. The trick is just to have roads that go through endless tracks of forest, with occasional modest clearings or a small village etc. 80% of the map can only be traversed by any vehicle, at all, if it stays right on the road. And it has decent LOS along the road, for as long as it is going straight - but precious little off to either side. That is the way to show the real importance of infantry and close assault tactics in "taiga".
If you don't move within 20 meters of forest, you flat do not move.
-
heh, i wouldn't read too much into Google Trends results. it's just some harmless fun.
i suspect Google somehow adjusts the results based on where you are located. otherwise it's a bit hard to understand why US scores so low (tho for e.g. "Halo 2" US is third) etc.
what's interesting in those Trends is how Theatre of War and Combat Mission wrestle on the same class. i'd have thought that Combat Mission would have gotten vastly more hits. CM vs ToW
-
how popular are certain games in google searches? where are certain games popular, regionally, in google searches?
of course there are a good number of variables at play here so the results aren't too relevant, but nonetheless fun/interesting:
EDIT: dear heavens, had to TinyURL the links.
Theatre of War:Regions
1. Hungary
2. Finland
3. Germany
4. Poland
5. Spain
6. United Kingdom
7. Canada
8. Italy
9. France
10. United States
Combat Mission OR Shock Force:Regions
1. Czech Republic
2. Hungary
3. Slovakia
4. Finland
5. Poland
6. Romania
7. Sweden
8. Germany
9. Austria
10. France
Combat Mission NOT Shock Force:Regions
1. Finland
2. Hungary
3. Poland
4. Czech Republic
5. Sweden
6. Spain
7. Austria
8. Germany
9. United Kingdom
10. Australia
Regions
1. Finland
2. Poland
3. Hungary
4. Czech Republic
5. Sweden
6. Spain
7. United Kingdom
8. France
9. Australia
10. Canada
[ April 11, 2008, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
axishistory.com had a couple of short narratives:
Battle of Tali-Ihantala - a translation of the main events of the said battle in a series of posts.
Infantry Regiment 30 - a brief history of the said regiment.
it would be relatively trivial to write a general book about Continuation War because it's been done to death in Finnish.
because it's been studied quite deeply for decades there's also quite an amount of stuff that's interesting from a wider viewpoint. for example just yesterday i noticed that one academic book about summer 1944 battles of Karelian Isthmus quotes Soviet archives regarding (very effective) repairing of armored vehicles on the Karelian Isthmus: during the 3 month period Finns had apparently by average KOed every Soviet armored vehicle 2.5 times. couldn't help but think about all the discussions on this board about German overclaiming.
-
compare to Finns: glorious 6 months of training. smallest tactical unit is company. defense and attack starts at range of 100 meters. fire from hip when running. attack tanks with molotov cocktails. if enemy gets into your trench (heh) use axe. bounding overwatch is done on scale of two men (one man shoots the other dashes). such innate Western tactical & doctrinal superiority.Originally posted by Splinty:Syrian NCOs aren't trained and grown like their Western counterparts. They're chosen for their reliability and toughness like in the old Soviet system. A typical Syrian NCO has the same training and experience as one of his squaddies, hell he probably was drafted in the same round of call-ups!
EDIT:
(image from official Squad Leader's Manual, printed in 1996)
[ April 07, 2008, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
i strongly suspect that not only does the Syrian squad leader understand the above, but he is also trained to do so. he would give separate orders for LMG and RPG based "teams" without any need to "split up" the squad. at least that's how Finns do it.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:You've said on a number of occasions that US squads can split because their TOE says they are made up of 2 or 3 fireteams but that Syrian squads can't split because their TOE is less flexible.
However, despite there being no formal fireteam structure within a Syrian squad, surely in real life the squad leader would be allowed to utilise the men under his command in ad-hoc teams at his own discretion? The mere fact that the squad includes a support weapon would imply that Syrian squad leaders understand the concept of fire and manoeuvre elements just as well as the next man.
To my mind, using the TOE alone and basing everything on that seems unreal. I'm sure a Syrian squad leader would understand the idea of splitting up his men to cover two directions at once, such as two sides of a building.
EDIT: BTW, this is TOE for basic Finnish squad:
Jaeger Squad
1. Squad Leader
2. 1st Pair
- Machinegunner
- Rifleman
3. 2nd Pair
- Rifleman (with AT weapon)
- Rifleman
4. 3rd Pair
- Rifleman
- Rifleman (assistant leader)
would the above mean that in CMSF the seven man strong Finnish jaeger squad would split into 4 units, as that's the official TOE? certainly not.
[ April 07, 2008, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
yeah, by tank hunter close attacks. it's pretty hard to simulate it in CM as few players are silly enough to move their tanks close enough to trenches or woods.Originally posted by JasonC:I guess they are supposed to by in woods using demo charges from their Sissi squads...
i agree, that 40mm Bofors AA gun is another good choise. considering the open map it would be a better choise than T-26s. in maps with more broken terrain it might be hard to find good firing positions.The best gun the Finns have in 1941, though, is not the 45mm on the captured tanks. It is the 40mm AA gun.
-
just to be clear, my comments were about MGs & mortars and offensive power in general. i wasn't talking about this specific case (which i am not familiar with at all) or the MG Battalions.
-
i think you are one of the best guys out there to get it right, so perhaps CMx2 will come to prove itself worthy.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The good news for you guys is we have 10 years of experience filtering through this sort of stuff. I think most of you would agree we've done a really good job incorporating feedback in the past, so the confidence should be there for us being able to selectively improve the game in a way that people feel good about. Certainly that is true with the patches we've released thus far.
i never enjoyed Close Combat series. i played CMBO demo a couple of times but never bought it. i didn't enjoy playing EYSA. i played TOW demo a couple of times but never bought it.Having said that... we know that no matter what we do we'll not get some CMx1 customers to return to CMx2, just like we knew that a lot of Steel Panthers and Close Combat guys wouldn't make the switch to CMx1. We can't be all things to all people so, by definition, some won't want to come along for the ride. That should be OK with everybody.
i switched to Steel Panthers when it came out and i still play it (both WW2 & modern, especially the latter). i switched to CMBB when it came out and i still play it. i still occasionally play ancient games like Panzergrenadier, Kampfgruppe etc on emulators.
sadly CMSF belongs to the first group of games at the moment. all those games share specific game play feel, tho CMBO is a borderline case.
-
BTW i bet you didn't know that according to finnish national epic, Maria (the mother of Jesus) became pregnant when a lingonberry accidentally entered her vulva in the forest? will CMx2 WW2 have lingonberries and American robins? do horses eat lingonberries? can you make motorcycle fuel from lingonberries and horse feces?
-
Send lingonberries and I'll post a complaint </font>Originally posted by Dirtweasle:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:
...
anyway, thank you to all the complainers.
-
there are a couple of books about the Continuation War in english, but i haven't read them and i do not know if they are even available. you can try making searches on Amazon.com.Originally posted by Aragorn2002:Can anyone recommend me a good book (in English or German) about the Finnish Continuation War of 1941-1944? I doubt whether there is such a book, but perhaps the Finns on this site will know. I'm especially interested in the fighting during 1944.
i think by far the best sources in english are online. wikipedia has some short descriptions of some battles and some more are posted on various forums related to the subject.
it's a shame that there aren't decent books in english about the subject, because there are tons of excellent material available in finnish.
i guess there simply are no markets for such books. i doubt the books on Winter War sell in meaningful numbers and their subject is a lot more sellable.
regarding that Osprey booklet, i did browse it at a bookstore once and it wasn't too impressive. it wasn't bad (for one of those Osprey 64 page booklets), but if you buy it don't expect marvels. it isn't as good as the old Osprey Campaign series booklets.
[ April 02, 2008, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
you are of course right. it's the riflemen who take the ground and when there's not enough of "support weapons", like with 1941 Soviets for example, the battalions will replace the firepower of MGs & mortars with the flesh & blood of riflemen. still, typically, it's the MGs & mortars that made up most of the offensive firepower of rifle battalions. CM just doesn't recreate that very well, perhaps not so much by undermodelling MGs & mortars but more because the battles don't take place in a larger context and morale isn't thus that well modelled, the result being excessive microlevel maneuver and unnaturally costly close range combat.Originally posted by Andreas:I think what Steve meant was that HMGs were not that useful on the assault. Which is correct - they are support weapons, but it takes actual riflemen to maneuver and take ground. I suggest reading "18 Platoon" for a thorough discussion of WW2 British platoon tactics, and on how to take ground without any HMGs being present.
-
i thank those people who bother to complain. i am a lazy ass and instead of complaining i do something else with my time (nothing great, more like watch cartoons from tv or read about forest undergrowth foliage of European Russia in 1941 while sitting in toilet).Originally posted by Adam1:As for CMx2, the people who are complaining about the design aren't even playing it at this point. It's kinda silly, really, I think more motivated by a desire to vent than an actual chance of making BFC get a new philosophy.
i am more than willing to admit that i haven't played the game for months and i doubt i will ever play it again in the future. i might try out the WW2 version if it's good, but i'm not holding my breath - i don't play EYSA or TOW either.
what comes to immersion and game design in general, i'm totally with JasonC, Mr. Dorosh & other similar folks. "evolutionary" design decisions are great, but there should be some priorities. dismissing arguments made by the above mentioned people as "grog talk" is, to be blunt, IMHO pretty stupid. the above mentioned people are not complaining about some meaningless technical details or shunning their eyes from the could-bes of future. it's pretty much the reverse. if someone is being a grog, it is not them.
regarding immersion, 1:1 by no means negates it. i recall playing some great 1:1 games back in Commodore 64 times. the names of the games escape me at the moment, but one with a Western setup i recall being particularly fun. graphically individual men must have been nothing but 8x8 pixel sprites and the game was naturally turn based, but immersion was great. there was a definite feeling of a realistic gun fight taking place with sound tactical decisions. tho it's not really comparable to Shock Force since you can't control individual men in SF.
anyway, thank you to all the complainers.
-
Finns don't have any heavy or medium PAKs in 1941. that 45mm gun on those T-26s is the best AT gun available. still, the chances for nailing a T-34 with T-26s is only theoretical, and less than that for KVs.
buying trenches and mines was a good idea, but you really should have bought at least a couple of tank hunters, as they are the number one Finnish AT weapon during that period.
that game would have been a lot more interesting if you had moved it forward in time a couple of months so that Finns get stuff like captured T-34s or if you would have had a bit more trees
-
in general, MGs together with mortars made 90% of all the work in typical infantry assaults. the offensive power of an infantry battalion comes from its MGs & mortars. riflemen are there mostly to hold ground, support heavy weapons and do some mopping up when on offensive. it was more an exception for riflemen to do the glorious stuff they do in most CM battles.Originally posted by SteveP:I am puzzled by this, as I do not think of MGs, other than LMGs, as useful in conducting an assault.
-
how does a primarily infantry force defeat a primarily armored offensive?
not by destroying the armored force but by frustrating the breakthru attempts of enemy forward echelons by channeling and disorganizing it. you aren't even really trying to win the battle, you are just making the offensive so slow on tactical level that its operational execution becomes broken.
as long as the armored force can't bring the full body of its forces into the battle it is an emperor without clothes. the first echelon can't exploit as long as a good operational level penetration isn't likely, due to its extreme dependancy on logistical services of the rear echelons. the main body of the force can not join the battle as long as the first echelon is in a state of disarray, blocking its path, not offering a good highway thru enemy lines.
you accomplish the situation with classical tools, such as correct evaluation of enemy plans and heavily prepared defences laid in depth. mines, AT ditches, fortified strongpoints, massed artillery and rocket fires etc.
the special function offered by the ATGMs is their ability to keep enemy recon at bay without revealing anything meaningful about the defences. they force the enemy to commit forces in considerable strength and more importantly commit them mostly blind.
the plan is not as much to destroy enemy armored force as it is to simply disorganize and slow it down. the eventual enemy armored breakthru will not be eliminated by passive ATGM nets but by defender's own armored forces so far kept patiently in reserve waiting for the right moment to be committed.
-
yeah, it's a bit summarily written, thought it's already 800 pages. as i see it, the book's main merit is the way Tooze explains the logic behind the Nazi madness and the grand economical realities.
many of the reviewers agree with you about the way bombing campaigns are covered.
you might want to check Overy's works.
regarding that table, it gives a bit wrong idea since it only gives annual totals.
coke production keeps going up till about mid 1944. catastrophical second half "distorts" 1944 totals. the same with for example ingot steel production - keeps going up still in early 1944 but catastrophical second half.
-
JasonC,
yawn.
obviously you simply do not know the basic figures.
input of core resources goes up well into 1944.
-
it's a sign. the end is nigh.
thanks about the conference paper, wasn't aware of it. got any other links in store?
-
German WW2 sniper training videosOriginally posted by Der Alte Fritz:Are there any other good titles to look out for on YouTube? Original film not re-enactments or compilations.
Assaulting anti-Tank/Infantry guns
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
doing a profitable A for B trade, or higher level goal overriding lower level interests, has nothing as such to do with doctrines or theories.
as i see it, the question is most of all about different methods of execution and the principles behind them.
the question is not should i trade A for B, but how do i trade A for B. how do i execute that demanding order to take village X.