undead reindeer cavalry

Lehväslaiho is claimed to have shot (or chopped), in a parade of some sort, a tree into one meter logs from 1000 meters (or some such range), and he was using Soviet guns & optics. i don't know how credible such extreme claims are, but no doubt those gunners were exceptional marksmen, as shown by their records. Finland had only a fistful of panzers & tanks, and thus could be very selective about the crews. you would become a gunner only if you had natural talent for it. perhaps other nations couldn't spare to be so selective about gunners? anyways, in Finland the average armor-to-armor ranges were so short that i don't know if optics & guns mattered that much. i have, as well, gotten the impression that 1st round hits were much more common than what we see in CM. for what it's worth, i have also read reports of skipping rounds that penetrate the bottom of a tank.

my recollection is that the first attacks weren't too powerful & were very limited in size (something like a couple infantry companies supported by a handful of tanks). most attacks were repelled, and the succesful attacks were pushed back with counterattacks. didn't the front brake when in one case the counterattack came too late (something like 12 hours later) and the Soviet infantry was already dug in? if so, i wonder if Finns had any reserves right behind the very front?

regarding testing and having non-moving targets: i usually KO the target tanks before starting the actual tests. that way you can be sure that the targets won't be moving or rotating, and you can control the test fire much better.

i can't say i could feel very good about it all. especially about the first couple of chaotic weeks. i guess they did well if one would apply, for example, German standards, but in my opinion Finland doesn't have the luxury for such lower levels of performance. it was damn close that we all didn't get shipped to Siberia. of course it looks marvellous on paper, with all those Guards divisions with heavy tanks, but in reality Finns could have done a lot better. one can't emphasize the chaos that reigned supreme for the first couple of weeks. all the insane counterattacks, some of which were succesful only because they were so insane (e.g. a regiment attacks an entire Guards division and is successfull only because Soviets didn't know how to act in such an absurd situation). mobile Soviet units roaming fields free for days, only stopped when mistakenly attacking other Soviet units. awgh, i don't want to think about it any longer.

:mad:

thanks for this reference, i have never before looked into this subject. here are two sites about the Nahverteidigungswaffe: The Nahverteidigungswaffe Die Nahverteidigungswaffe i wonder if the information on these sites also apply to King Tiger. and the whine continues: i wonder how accurate they were in reality? not one grenade missed in CM as far as i remember, while the design (fixed angle) makes them look less accurate. according to the above mentioned site the range was 7-10 meters, and the effect of the 26mm grenade (smoke greandes were 92mm) was less than that of a normal hand grenade. however according to the other site the fragments of the grenade would fly in circle up to 100 meters. i would also imagine that the fact that the grenade would detonate 2 meters above the target would make it far more effective than an ordinary hand grenade, and if it wasn't surely they wouldn't have replaced the pistol ports with them. in CM a single such grenade instantly pinned a veteran/crack squad that was in command of HQ. the ranges were certainly beyond 10 meters.

i made some tests and it seems both aircraft & artillery are useless against King Tigers. you may get immobilizations or damaged guns, but usually you get nothing. smoke & T-34/85 rush seems to suffer from a "peculiar" unwillingness of T-34 crews to shoot. often they wouldn't shoot or even target the King Tiger from a KO position. another shortcoming is the unability for the T-34s to target the hull when shooting from the side. shooting from 100 meters, something like half of the shots hit the turret front instead of the weak side hull. i know these things have to do with the CM engine & the range doesn't matter, but it's still pretty annoying (not that i would ever face things like King Tigers in the games i play). same goes for infantry. a couple of times when infantry was trying to assault a KT that had lost its gun, the KT crews were tossing more grenades than a platoon of veteran/crack infantry, effectively pinning them down (they were under HQ control). crews tossing grenades like that seems absurd, especially if a grenade is supposed to simulate something like 5 grenades. i must be missing something here. yeah, and of course ordinary infantry used molotovs before using grenades how much does the size of the target matter to the hit %? T-34s seemed to miss KT "awful lot" from 100 - 300 m distances. if they manage to miss KT from 200 meters, i can't see how they could ever hit a StuG. *endless whine* did King Tiger really have that fast turrent & rate of fire? impressive thing if it did.

you are naturally correct. somehow my damaged brains ignored the "on map" part.

Also, a Jagdtiger is very effective against them... </font>

have you tried using "target wide" (or something like that) command? it spreads the fire over a larger area. i would love to have my mortars fire INTO woods, instead of just the treeline. kinda stupid.

if you know someone will buy King Tigers, then i guess you can go gamey as well. buy some infatry, a couple of cheap tanks & good airsupport. let airsupport deal with King Tigers, then take the flags with infatry. or buy 82mm FOs, pioneers & vehicles to carry them. smoke the KT & rush it with your pioneers. if it reverses off the hill, just wait with your pioneers for its return. 37mm PAKs might work as well. it's easy to move them, it's hard to spot them, and stielgrenade will penetrate King Tiger just fine. accuracy isn't a problem either, as that King Tiger is most likely not moving. though you need to get pretty close.

can T-26 fire from move? i think it has to stop to fire.

A Monty Python reference? </font>

such sillyness. of course the squirrels would be pteromys volans, not African anomaluridae which aren't proper squirrels in the first place. these noctural beasts, the pteromys volans, just luv to pack into groups & inhabitate holes of all kind - thus the ultimate killers of King Tigers. watch this beautiful beast fly thu the night - the terror, the havoc it will wreak. witness it in silent awe. what can one say. it's "top penetration" "knocked out", man.

perhaps they were carried by a pair of African swallows?

i think there are some at Scenario Depot.

cool i need to read about this. it's far too humiliating to not know these things in detail, not say even on general level i went & got Kuusela's "Wehrmachtin panssarit Suomessa" from library. i just read the part about Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303, and it seems they knocked out two T-34s. 1st Battery got one 28th of June as three T-34s managed to break through Finnish defences, and then 3rd Battery got the one you talk about 30th of June. according to Kuusela, they were actually pretty experienced. they had been on front (Northern Russia, Soutern Estonia) already four months before they got transferred to Finland, and had scored 46 kills. in contrast Finnish StuG crews had zero battle experience before the battles. Kuusela reasons that German StuGs didn't get that many kills, because - Germans used them (properly) in depth as anti-tank assets to stop potential armored enemy breakthroughs, whereas Finns used them at the very frontline & in aggressive counter attacks. - Germans hadn't received any training on how to use their StuGs in the Karelian terrain. - Cooperation between Finnish infantry & German StuGs didn't work well (Finnish infantry misunderstood German intentions).

thanks. i was pulling numbers from my memory, so they must be more or less off. did T-26s really take part in the armored battles of summer 1944? i was under the impression that lighties were kept behind the lines. how did those German StuGs & StuHs do? they took part in battles, but that's all i know.

armor is over rated there really weren't any pure armor battles to speak of until summer 1944. the deep forests and the numerous lakes & swamps of Karelian terrain weren't suitable for armor, as shooting distances were very short. armor was used to support infantry attacks, but that was pretty much all. on both sides enemy armor was dealt with small caliber AT guns & infantry AT weapons. Combat Mission isn't optimal in recreation of those battles, as both sides used armor in woods (which isn't possible in CM). to recreate those battles you need large areas of scattered trees and it doesn't work well. in the summer of 1944 there were some armor battles as USSR launched a massive attack to end the war for good. like you said, on paper it looked like it would be a quick game over situation: Soviets had some 800 modern tanks (T-34, IS-2, ISU-152), while Finns had only some 20 StuGs, about 10 captured Soviet tanks (most were T-34s, a couple of KV-1s & ISU-152s) plus some 20 German StuGs. but the only area suitable for armor was a 10 km wide isthmus and Finns managed to defend that isthmus. the battles were pretty much over in 3 weeks as Soviet high command didn't want to send reinforcements (and instead took away the Guards divisions to be used against Germans). the most important factor in defeating the Soviet attack was the heavy use of artillery & airforces. the next most important one was infantry AT weapons (especially panzerfausts & panzerschrecks) and then the 37mm, 50mm and 75mm PAKs (those small caliber PAKs were effective due to the short shooting distances). Finnish panzers destroyed only some 100 tanks, while in total Soviets lost some 400-600 tanks. Finns lost some 10 tanks, 100 PAKs (in that terrain there was no way to take them with you when you had to retreat) and 8000-10000 men. if you want to play these battles, i would go for user made scenarios available at Scenario Depot & elsewhere. a typical pure armor battle could be something like 4 Finnish StuGs facing 12+ Soviet T-34s, IS-2s & ISU-152. add in armor & airforce + infantry & AT-guns. in case you are wondering, StuGs are good in dealing with even the heaviest of the Soviet tanks. also note that T-34s can't flank because of the terrain & heavy presence of infantry & PAKs.

1:33 seems unlikely but not impossible. Finnish stugs had a killratio higher than 1:10, while they were fighting against beasts like IS-2 & ISU-152.

has anyone looked into the databases of CM? how & where they are stored. perhaps we could hack a patch of our own? switch hand grenade & molotov values or somefink, depending on what the database is like. this "bug" is annoying once you are aware of it.

:mad: POOR RUSSIAN WINE?!?!111 :mad: looks more like a Koskenkorva bottle to me. Koskenkorva Viina — or simply Koskenkorva — is a Finnish brand of clear spirit with the alcohol content of 38 %. its smooth and fresh taste makes it perfect to be served straight as an aperitif schnaps, or mixed in various drinks and cocktails. Koskenkorva Viina is named after the Koskenkorva distillery, where the high-quality ethyl alcohol used in its making is distilled from Finnish barley. Koskenkorva Viina is produced and bottled at the Rajamäki production plant by the Altia Corporation, the leading Finnish wine and spirits house. the Rajamäki plant was established in 1888. perhaps BFC could simply switch hand grenade and MC data? the whole infantry assault code itself could use some finesse, tho. e.g. once my squad KOed a sherman that was some 30 meters away. in between of the squad and the sherman were two Russian SMG squads. quite a fellow the one who KOed that enemy combat vehicle.

i would like to see a mix of Combat Mission and Operation Flash Point. OFP has some impressive elements, like the AI command system. if Combat Mission had the OFP level of detail... :eek: :eek: :eek:

grrrrh! allrighty then, you bony vulture of a man! :mad: now, i make no promises of when i will drop you the turn, for i am one busy undead (trolling these forums from work, naturally), but i'll do my best. i'll send the turn prolly some time next week or so. so you better prepare yourself for some PBEM carnage, you European scum! :mad:

i know, i posted criticism on that thread my criticism was focused mainly on the very point i am making on this thread. a better example would have had a platoon of infantry instead of a single MG. or at least a HQ to rally that MG. single MG is good for nothing but lighting up poorly armored vehicles. the problem with that example is that once you have a platoon or company of infantry agaisnt you, your infantry becomes less important as the proper use of mortars and such becomes the key element to victory. but yeah, i agree with JasonC that infantry can easily advance on open field (when not facing large calibre fire). in my opinion that is a flaw in the CM engine. it becomes more or less a serious flaw if you play small scale infantry battles.