"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[Spook]

I'm getting into the "bandwagon" here, but as you seem unflappable, tero (for better or worse), I can't help but iterate your response below to someone else's quote:

>so an across the board bonus to all German

>infantry (or across the board penalty to all

>US infantry) is not warranted.

I would go for the across the board penalty so as not to inconvenience the Commonwealth troops too much.

So you'd go for some across-the-board penalty for US troops in some form or another. OK. In what way? And at what quantified level? Based on how many references, and properly cross-referenced to account for counter-arguments? Fixated, or adjusting through the months of 1942-45?

So, okay, you've staked out that you want nationality modifiers. BTS has staked out that you're not going to get them, using far more compelling reasons than you have offered. I'm glad that BTS (Steve) has been willing to articulate the standards it strives for here, arguing against stock nationality shifts as applied down to squad or single-man level in wargames.

If you want uber-Finns & uber-Germans, roll up your sleeves and work with the scenario design parameters, and make them yourself in your own scenarios. The "fitness" factor for CM2 is another new variable you'll get to play around with.

You can keep whipping out Dupuy (or even Weigley or Creveld) to make your case that US troops should get across-the-board negative modifiers. Others here could whip out Ambrose or Doubler to counter such assertions. My added point here is that I don't trust for any one author to make all of my case----not Dupuy nor Doubler (and certainly not Ambrose!).

Keep on arguing for "nationality" for CM if you want, but BTS has laid it out ad nauseum that it's an argument you'll still lose.

[Mark IV]

Yeah, so about them there rifles...

What on earth would make you think that the M1 is a poor suppressor? Used correctly (as it often was, btw) under the right circumstances, it was a hellacious god-awful suppressor.

At 60m, especially in village and forest, I believe the MP to be superior. But that isn't how most of the war was fought. Not all Germans had MPs anyway, far from it.

I have here Patton's Letters of Instruction to the Third Army, dated April 1944 (War As I Knew It). In it he is already advocating "marching fire", of which he is known as the foremost advocate. Marching fire was SOP in Third Army long before its use spread over other American forces. He even gave specific advice to "shoot short" against an unseen enemy, because "ricochets make nastier sounds and wounds". He goes on to say that the "M1 rifle is the most deadly rifle in the world".

Now, we all know the general was prone to pumping up the troops with a little friendly propaganda (his job, btw) which sometimes didn't bear a lot of postwar scrutiny. In this case, I happen to think he was more correct than not.

The M1 had a very powerful round, overly so in my opinion (but not in the context of the times), with larger magazine capacity than the Mauser. It can pump lead in a marginally-aimed manner better than any other full powered non-full-auto of the war and reloads very quickly. In other words, unless they encountered a company exclusively armed with MP44s, the American rifle company could put out more shoulder-fired suppression than any comparable organization in the war.

Training and doctrine were the reason that this was not fully exploited at first. Once recognized as a deficiency, it was corrected at the unit level by individual commanders on an increasingly widespread basis (Doubler). HT gunners also were brought to bear on snipers and infantry positions to simply spray the area, and give the enemy bad feelings. By the end of the war this was SOP (see The Incredible Year, diary of Donald J. Willis, HT and AT gunner).

Tendency of the fired-upon to go to ground is hardly unique to American forces (nor was it US doctrine). Training, leadership, and experience are needed to correct it. After St. Lo, many US units were retrained behind the front in "new" techniques to storm specific objectives. They also learned to coordinate delivery of HE (direct and indirect) more effectively in the time-honored American practice of substituting material for lives when possible, a practice I happen to support.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Yeah, so about them there rifles...

What on earth would make you think that the M1 is a poor suppressor? Used correctly (as it often was, btw) under the right circumstances, it was a hellacious god-awful suppressor.

At 60m, especially in village and forest, I believe the MP to be superior. But that isn't how most of the war was fought. Not all Germans had MPs anyway, far from it.

I have here Patton's Letters of Instruction to the Third Army, dated April 1944 (War As I Knew It). In it he is already advocating "marching fire", of which he is known as the foremost advocate. Marching fire was SOP in Third Army long before its use spread over other American forces. He even gave specific advice to "shoot short" against an unseen enemy, because "ricochets make nastier sounds and wounds". He goes on to say that the "M1 rifle is the most deadly rifle in the world".

Now, we all know the general was prone to pumping up the troops with a little friendly propaganda (his job, btw) which sometimes didn't bear a lot of postwar scrutiny. In this case, I happen to think he was more correct than not.

The M1 had a very powerful round, overly so in my opinion (but not in the context of the times), with larger magazine capacity than the Mauser. It can pump lead in a marginally-aimed manner better than any other full powered non-full-auto of the war and reloads very quickly. In other words, unless they encountered a company exclusively armed with MP44s, the American rifle company could put out more shoulder-fired suppression than any comparable organization in the war.

Training and doctrine were the reason that this was not fully exploited at first. Once recognized as a deficiency, it was corrected at the unit level by individual commanders on an increasingly widespread basis (Doubler). HT gunners also were brought to bear on snipers and infantry positions to simply spray the area, and give the enemy bad feelings. By the end of the war this was SOP (see The Incredible Year, diary of Donald J. Willis, HT and AT gunner).

Tendency of the fired-upon to go to ground is hardly unique to American forces (nor was it US doctrine). Training, leadership, and experience are needed to correct it. After St. Lo, many US units were retrained behind the front in "new" techniques to storm specific objectives. They also learned to coordinate delivery of HE (direct and indirect) more effectively in the time-honored American practice of substituting material for lives when possible, a practice I happen to support.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1 has a lot going for it. It is the most utterly reliable autoloading rifle made up until the AK-47, and when a group of soldiers with this weapon meet a group with the K98, the K98 is going to be in trouble. Plus, although not really the issue, the .30 (7.62x63mm) round fired by the M1 was of a newer generation than other European rounds, created after the experience of the Boer war and not before it. It remains one of the more deadly rounds (witness its popularity in Europe and the US for hunting).

Still, the MP44 and MP40 suppress far better.

[Michael Dorosh]

Patton advocated a lot of silly things; I kind of wonder if "Marching Fire" isn't one of them.

Do we know if this was actually used/worked?

I thought the heyday of the skirmish line was 1 July 1916...

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

What on earth would make you think that the M1 is a poor suppressor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the off chance you were directing this question to me, the answer is that I never at any time said I thought the M1 was a poor suppressor. I only quoted Depuy's remarks on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have here Patton's Letters of Instruction to the Third Army, dated April 1944 (War As I Knew It). In it he is already advocating "marching fire", of which he is known as the foremost advocate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have here a quote from Depuy who apparently was not a big advocate of marching fire.

"So, marching fire obviously was designed to overcome that problem, but somewhere in the transmission between the lessons learned and our unit, marching fire became the tactic through which you attacked. In other words, we lined up two battalions with two companies up and they went across the line of departure, using marching fire. It might have worked if the enemy was not well dug in, not well camouflaged, and very weak; but, if the enemy was professional, as the Germans usually were, was well-hidden, and was in very good positions, marching fire as often as not, just wasn’t sufficient. We marched into their killing zones."

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But that will affect the superior sides of that side as well. And there is where I feel the unrealism lies. The player can not affect only one aspect of the troop combat behavior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what one aspect do you want to control? Making US units, even if VETERAN, run around like aimless children when one bullet is fired in their direction while even Conscript German troops can take a licking and keep on ticking? Once again, Experience is the key here, not nationality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But that does not make the fact that there were inherent differences in tactics and doctrine that affected the behavior of the troops in team A so that they would respond differently to battlefield stimuli.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have failed to show what realistic affect these "inherent differences in tactics and doctrine" have in CM game terms. The sources you have quoted do not support any inherent difference that isn't already simulated in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually I am wanting the US troops to act in accordance with the historical tactics and doctrine. Which was different from the way (at least) the Germans acted, if that can be extrapolated from Gen. Depuys text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it can not be. At least not the way you are extracting it. And that is the primary reason your arguments are meaningless. What you are removing from Depuy's statements are NOT incompatible with the way the game currently works. At least not the way myself and others interpret what he is saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you Americans see the boogie man every time the effectiveness of your army gets questioned ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. And that is rather an interesting point to make when you know I have consistently argued against national modifiers for Finns, Germans, and Soviets as well as US forces. So either I am biased against/for every nation that fought in the war, or I am being clear headed about this. National modifiers are bunk. I don't care what nationality is being discussed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It has been establieshed that US troops would be predisposed not to open fire on unseen targets UNLESS ordered to do so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... Tero... no unit in Combat Mission fires at "unseen targets UNLESS ordered to do so". It is called "Area Fire" and the TacAI never makes use of it on its own. So I guess we are all set.

And in what context of Dupey's statement made? Hedgerow fighting with a division that was clearly not well trained? That is what it looked like to me. Now if you want to take this man's experience and apply it to the entire US Army from 1942-1945 that is your choice. But pardon the rest of us for not doing the same.

Ok, so what is your point? You are saying that US Squads should be different from German ones how exactly? In CM terms, please describe what it is that is wrong.

The way I interpret your arguments you have made two:

1. That US units were more easily suppressed than German ones as a general rule, training and experience having nothing to do with anything. They just were, plain and simple. Instead of fighting, rifle units would just mill about aimlessly until artillery or tanks were brought up to deal with the problem.

2. That US rifle units were not used for suppression missions as a general rule. US units basically never fired their rifles unless the target presented was akin to what they experienced in boot camp.

Do I have your two points correct?

Let us assume that your sweeping generalizations, based on your personal interpretation of a few sentences from a couple of different sources. What possible reasons could there be for these two "national traits" and does CM adequately simulate them now without some hardcoded values.

1. Since Dupey was talking about hedgerows (from what I can tell), the US tendency to not wish to engage in infantry combat is sensible. The infantry were not well trained, especially not for this type of fighting, and were on the attack. The same was true, BTW, for armored vehicle crews. As we all know, attacking a determined and skilled defender in such terrain was a quick way to get yourself buried 6 feet under the Earth. Direct Fire weapons were almost useless in such terrain. If that is all the Allied forces had at their disposal, they would have had little choice but to bleed themselves to death (more than they did!) trying to kick the Germans out of this area. However, they had huge artillery assets at their disposal.

So... put yourself in the position of a Rifle Company or Tank Platoon CO. You don't know how to fight in this terrain and, more importantly, the Germans have proved that by causing you and your neighboring formations horrendous casualties for little to no gain. Now... what would YOU do when you came up against a prepared German position? Fix the bayonets and charge? With all that artillery lying around? No, you would try and beat the defender up as much as possible before going on the attack. Problem was that it wasn't too effective and took a long time to pay off.

Hedgerow fighting progressed through (roughly) three stages. The first was "Shock" at how difficult and costly the fighting was. The second was "Cautious" where attacks were only made with overwhelming firepower, but still lacking adequate use of infantry to take and hold the objectives. The third was "Aggressive", which is basically when the US perfected the art of fighting in hedgerows, using very complex tactics where tanks, artillery, and infantry all played very important roles. The German lines, which had held for months before this, crumbled rather quickly. These are the facts.

Now... can this be simulated in CM now? Sure thing, provided the human player does not utilize hindsight and start applying the lessons learned by the third stage to first stage type battles. You should also see more Green units in the earlier first stage battles than the third stage ones. There is no need, not even a tiny need, to change the way things work.

Oh... and if anybody has seen how well the Germans did on the offensive in the same terrain, you should really take a look at it. They had the same problems the Allies did. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the logistical support (i.e. lavish artillery) to even adequately duplicate the Allies second stage tactics, not to mention the third. So if we are going to put in something that will whack the US troops in this situation, the same needs to be applied to the Germans and British as well.

2. Point two implies that the US troops never learned how to effectively use their rifles in combat. Those couple of weeks basic training in the US were rigidly adhered to for the entire war. No mater how many months of combat a unit underwent, they just never grasped the concept of how to best use their weapons effectively. At least that is your line of argument Tero.

Everything I have ever read about the US forces in WWII, including accounts from German officers (oh... like Rommel for example) who fought against them, shows that this line of thinking is BS. Some of what you have pointed to is normal for any fresh formation in combat (i.e. lacking initiative and avoiding risk), so if you looked at German or Soviet units you would see the same thing for example. As for learning how best to utilize their weapons, I would say that if anything the US forces were better adapted to change, and quick changes, than other national formations. NOT LESS adapt. However, most of these lessons were in tactics which the human player is responsible for, or changes to TO&E which CM enforces, so there is no modifier argument to make here either.

Now... what about this suppression argument? Forgetting for a moment that Tero's argument is confusing, the game does simulate which unit was better at suppresion. The Germans were, for the most part, better able to suppress. Is this because of training or the weapons they each used? Both. They are inseperable. The Germans based their tactical infantry doctrine around the suppression ability of the LMG. The US attempted to copy this by using the BAR, but it simply wasn't up to the task. So they had to rely upon seperate MMG assets, which were slow to redeploy and were generally less effective than the MG34/42 due to slower rate of fire and cooling considerations. What does this all mean? In a 1:1 match the Germans have a better chance of suppressing the enemy than the other way around all else being equal.

Knowning this, US units would understandably seek to compensate for this gap. They did so by using artillery, tanks, or superior numbers of infantry. Trying to get in a tit for tat exchange between a M1 rifle and a MG42 was a losing proposition. At least when the Germans were on the defensive, which was the normal case in Europe. It is also what the quotes Tero provided above discuss, not US on the defensive. So this only applies to US on the attack, not the other way around. This is all simulated in CM as is.

---

Well, I have spent too much time arguing with you Tero. National modifiers are the best way for us to screw up CM's ability to simulate reality. Not the reality taken out of context from a few quotes, but the reality as seen from broader and more open minded research. I have never, and will never, argue for/against a national modifier because of my own national bias (i.e. being an American), so if you are sharpening up your words to make that sort of baseless accusation again stop right there. You know as well as I do that I always have, and always will, argue against ANY national modifier. I am no more inclined to make US troops fight unrealistically better than I am to make Italian or Romanian troops fighting unrealistically poorer. We'll leave that to other game designers.

Steve

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

A qualification about my points concerning suppression... I was talking about 300m or so engagement ranges. This was where the German squads, generally, had the upper hand in terms of the ability to suppress. Especially if on the defensive and supported by a HMG42. The German rifle squad, inspite of being 3 men short compared to the US squad, holds the line about equally at 100m. But after that the superior numbers of semi/full auto weapons of the US squad beat the German squad hands down. And if the German squad loses its LMG, it also loses its suppression advantage.

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

Well said Steve. A soldier is a soldier regardless of what country he calls home. He is there to fight and the only important differences between soldiers are training and experience (conscript, green, etc), health (fitness), and weaponry.

National characteristics are bunk, especially at this scale and scope.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Guest PondScum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

the only important differences between soldiers are training (conscript, green, etc), health (fitness), and weaponry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And leadership! The only important differences between soldiers are training, health, weaponry, and leadership. Oh, and supply. Supply! The only important differences between soldiers are...

Ok, I'll stop now

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the off chance you were directing this question to me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really directing it at anyone, rather am firing in a general direction to suppress anti-Garand sentiments.

Marching fire was one aspect of Patton's efforts to make commanders force men to shoot and move, shoot and move. Those ideas permeate everything he wrote. His problem wasn't with the American soldier or his equipment, but with the training doctrine and complacent commanders. This was corrected. People often forget that for the majority of American forces in the ETO the entire learning curve under fire was less than one year.

The German organization of squad tactics around the MG is discussed so often here and elsewhere that I take it as a given. I'm only comparing shoulder-fired weapons. A determined Ami rifle squad created a real firestorm.

[dalem]

THANK YOU STEVE!

-dale

[Tero]

>Depuy doesn't say anything about any

>weapons that would have been good

>suppressors if they had only been used as

>such, there or anywhere else.

Indeed. But he does state that the infantry units armed with M-1 did not engage unseen targets because of their TRAINING and DOCTRINE, not because the M-1 was such a lousy weapon.

>What parts of these sentences do you not

>understand?

The quote talks about tactics and doctrine, not about the qualities of the M-1 as a weapon.

>Yes, silly you. I thought we were talking

>about Depuy's opinion of the M1, not yours.

Actually we are talking about his views on US infantry tactics and doctrine, NOT about his views on the Garand characteristics.

[Tero]

>1. It made a war time publication. Hmmm,

>the Dupray article is from 1986 and is an

>oral rememborance.

>

>2. I have a war time publication that tells

>me how the Sherman was superior to the

>Panther. Take these with a grain of salt.

"You are holding the best rifle there is" can be taken with a grain of salt. "Listen guys, perhaps you should do someting differently with the best rifle in your hand except using it as a crutch while waiting for the artillery barrage to clear the enemy position" is something else.

>3. Dupray own article tells of how they

>didn't do well in the hedgerows. That place

>him in the 90th Infantry Division when the

>unit was suffering under mismangement.

What about the colonel in the unit in Italy ? Did he and/or the unit exist ? Was that unit also mismanaged ?

>4. In your own quote, Dupray claims by the

>end of the war the unit didn't have that

>problem. So, between July of 44 and Apr 45

>it has been fixed. Perhaps it was more of a

>bad training, bad leadership, heavy

>casualty thing then one of a national

>failure?

Had it been just been in the Gen. Depuys interview it could have been chalked up as a personal view. When it surfaced as an advice given by a colonel who was a CO of a unit in Italy printed in a DoD pamphlet it upgraded the issue into a new level.

>When would this national doctrine change >during the 11 months of combat?

That is the thing I am missing too. But if the US TD doctrine is a correlation then the change could have taken months.

>5. Quoting the 101st commander doesn't

>prove a thing either. That 25% only fired

>their rifles has always been debated.

>HOTLY i may add.

First time I saw it.

>Sorry, in my eyes you have proved nothing.

>I require more proof then this to sway me

>to your side of the arguement.

Lets put it this way: can anybody find a fact (statement, whatever) that contradicts (or indeed corraborate) both the pamphlet and Gen. Depuys statement about the tactics and doctrine ?

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[dalem]

tero, what's your point? It seems from the evidence that U.S. Green troops came to the field with some targeting issues, and they had to unlearn them. One of these issues that had been put forward is the reluctance of Green U.S. riflemen to use suppressive fire on suspected enemy postions in favor of aimed fire on known targets. Let's suppose that is true. Green troops in CM already have a few detriments that certainly decrease their overall unit firepower, hence decrease their suppressive ability. For the U.S. assume it's the "need a target" issue. Problem solved. For a Green German unit assume it's the "fired all my MG42 belts off too quick" issue. Problem still solved.

To me it seems that the issue is "are Green units supposed to be worse than Regulars?" and the answer is clearly "Yes, they are, and the game reflects this".

U.S. TD doctrine is irrelevant to this discussion, by the way - that doctrine was proved largely false in the field given the tools available, but there were huge manufacturing issues to consider. Apples and oranges, sir.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Tero wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Had it been just been in the Gen. Depuys interview it could have been chalked up as a personal view. When it surfaced as an advice given by a colonel who was a CO of a unit in Italy printed in a DoD pamphlet it upgraded the issue into a new level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without looking at the specifics surrounding their comments, BOTH statements are meaningless. I've got veteran statements here that contradict each other all the time. Put 10 vets in a room, ask them the same question, and you will most likely get 10 different answers. Without context personal statements hold little to no value. Period.

It could be that both commanders were in charge of largely green troops at the time they made these statements. It is almost a sure bet Depuy was, and it is likely the other Colonel also was griping about the same sorts of problems (the Allies, if you didn't know, had a heck of a time in Italy just as in Normandy). So let us look at what the REAL underlying reason for their comments might be...

The US Army fielded fresh divisions all the way up until the end of the war. So at any given time, on either of the two major fronts, largely inexperienced divisions could be found. I count almost a half dozen infantry divisions that had only one month's worth of combat experience. One armored division, the 16th, only had THREE days of combat. The 20th Armored only 8 and the 13th only 16. Therefore, even if the US Army as a whole was very experienced and had learned how to apply doctrine best, there were ALWAYS some units that had not. In Normandy there were many such units.

Worse, the US replacement system was terrible. This meant that even Veteran units often had large numbers of inadequately trained riflemen under their command. It was so bad that many divisions had to have "refresher" training courses just behind the front line. Vets often took bets on how long so and so would last simply because it was so common for the "new guys" to get hit.

Experience is the key factor, and the US units were very often Green by CM standards. Even in April of 1945. By the same token, many of the German infantry units suffered the same sorts of problems but for entirely different reasons.

Think about it... German doctrine only got better as the war went on, agreed? Then why did the level of quality in their infantry decrease? Uhmm... because the training was often rushed and incomplete, Hitler ordered new units to be formed instead of fleshing out old ones, and such units were often tossed into the front lines at the hottest spot simply because they had the highest % of their TO&E filled? Could be! So...

Good doctrine, without proper training, doesn't mean squat. Bad doctrine, which is unlearned by those who survive, is also irrelevant. You appear to think that a unit which learns something in boot camp always fights that way and never unlearns it. Otherwise your argument you have made makes no sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lets put it this way: can anybody find a fact (statement, whatever) that contradicts (or indeed corraborate) both the pamphlet and Gen. Depuys statement about the tactics and doctrine ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. Look at any number of battle descriptions. There is even a book about this subject, called "When the Odds were Even" which detailed combat in the Vosage (sp?) mountains where it was pretty much small unit infantry actions.

Does this mean that Depuy and the statements in that report are false? Not at all. Taken in the correct context (poorly experienced troops in tough situations, on the attack, against a tenacious defender, with poor quality replacements, etc.) these comments are a no brainer for anybody who has studied the combat capabilities of the US soldier in WWII. So if that is the type of battle you want to simulate, set the experience level to where it should be (i.e. Green-Regular). If you want to simulate the abilities of more seasoned units, then up the experience level.

---

Apparently I am not the only one having a very difficult time understanding WHAT you think should be changed, to WHAT degree, and WHY. The only thing I can figure you are your point is that US units didn't fire their rifles hardly ever, no matter what the conditions, experience, date, theater, etc.? If so, that is total bunk.

The Marshall Report, as someone mentioned, has been trashed by many military historians. This is probably not completely fair, but you should not take the % rifle fired statistic with anything but a grain of salt.

What did I see in the "Lessons" document? Same thing I have seen for other armies. Doctrine and combat experience very often did not match up very well. Some of these, like getting guys to return fire and move while under fire, were universal problems for all nations.

And this is why National Modifiers are a VERY, VERY bad idea. Tero... you are the *only* one arguing for this, everybody is arguing against it. So even if we did go down the road of putting in personal biases, we would certainly want to go with the majority opinion. Your views are certainly in the minority. So no matter what, you are arguing a lost cause. Especially because we will not put in National Biases

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

I'm sorry to still take this up, but I feel I must. To accuse someone of being a nationalist or a racist even in a circumventive way is a heavy thing on this board.

Let's look at Tero's claims, which have brought these accusations, and if there is any ground to these accusations. There are two claims that seem to get mixed up by some people.

1 claim: Finnish army faired rather well, all things considered, and if you feel the need to make comparisons, in some respects it did even better than armys of other warring nations.

What is so nationalistic about this claim? Sure it is debatable. I share this view like most people who are well acquainted with Finnish history and others might not, but it is no more nationalistic than to state outright that e.g. US artillery was the best, period. Maybe you are biased or not informed enough thinking so, maybe vice versa. We can allways look into these things more closely on obejctive and detailed grounds, if we feel the need, allthough it would be better to do it under some specific topic. But if a Finn is provoked with a ûberfinn bait on any thread, expect to have a reply...

2 claim. To be even more realistic the game needs some national traits.

Did different tacticall concepts, training etc. affect the way troops behaved on the field? Off course they did, I don't see how this can be argued. And yes, they could and did learn from their mistakes and they sometimes they would even forget their training and just be creative. Should these national traits be implemented in this game? No I don't think so, for a multitude of reasons, most of which Steve allready mentioned. Basicly, because as a game it works better without them. On the other hand, in other games like Steel Panthers I see nobody complaining that it is nationalistic to have US Marines and Japs to surrender less seldom than other troops. But how come it is nationalist or racist to suggest the same thing in the way Tero has done?

Actually, now that I think of, there are some nationall traits that could be easilly implemented in the game, that have come up in this discussion. German officers and troops were loud, so hearing markers could be implemented more for German infantry. Finnish artillery had good maps and they had done scrupulous work beforehand so with every Finnish FO you could get also few TRP's even on attack. US FO's (or any officers) could have inherently shorter response times calling artillery. I think these examples are quite realistic in typical situation, but because they are not realistic in every situation and could offbalance the game without a zillion more similar national traits, we don't need them.

Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.

Yes, Finland is a small nation, and of course we didn't decide the fate of other nations as the bigger powers did, we were mostly on the receiving end and just tried to navigate through very difficult times the best we could. Alas, reading some of the comments I get the feeling that the right to feel proud of even to give due credit to your forefathers is resereved in your minds only to the big nations, who write history in more ways than one. Even though small, we too have our place in history, and we don't like a condescending tone any more than you do. When our history is written, we think that also we have some say in that. Let the facts argue and please refrain from unaccounted accusations. Maybe this time it is somebody elses turn to come up with apology.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since no one accused the Finns on this board of being a nationalist, there is no need for an apology. Individuals have grabbed nationalist and possibly racist torches (depending on how you define terms) and been called on it by Vanir, myself, and maybe a dozen other people including BTS. I even pointed out that sexist commentary ill behooved anyone here, but no one ever said the Finns as a people were all nationalists.

Now, maybe people are getting hot because no communication is getting through and some shoddy evidence was pushed forward to support Finnish racial / national superiority and American inferiority (hard to racially insult the US when the country has every race on the planet in its borders), but no one ever said that the Finns on this list are nationalists, only that select individuals are.

In fact, and number of Finns (Jarmo, etc.) have added to various discussions

[Gyrene]

This whole Super-Finn / Wuss-Americans dialog is starting to piss me off.

Comparing the Finns' success at defending the backwoods of their homeland against then-conscript Russians to the US's waging a massive war 3000 miles away from their shores (over an ocean, mind you, something even Germany could not do then) is absolutely nonsense.

Americans early in the war in Europe were not fighting to protect their homes in terrain they knew intimately, they were answering the call and sent off to places they never heard of before.

Do you think Finns would have done any better at Tarawa, Peleliu or Iwo Jima? Or at Normandy? How about in Lybia?

I don't think an entire army of Uber-Finns would fare any better than the Russians if Finland decided to invade the Ozarks here.

Defending your backyard is one thing, but taking the fight thousands of miles away from your home in utterly foreign locations requires an entirely different mind set.

As far as Americans being soft, I'd stack up the 1st Marine Division against anything Finland can put together. Point me out to a Finn division with a better combat record.

Keep this nationality bonus nonsense out of the game, making different types of units better or worse is one thing, baseless racial profiling is another.

Gyrene

[Battlefront.com]

Kallmikahos,

I agree with Slapdragon. Nobody that I know of has made sweeping generalizations about the Finnish people. You have a great nation and therefore should be proud of it. In that respect, nationalism is fine. However, nationalism that is not bounded by rational discourse is unacceptable.

As for the debate about which army had The Best™ artillery, I could care less. What is important is to see how each worked and to give them fair represenation in the game. Let players decide which is The Best™.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did different tacticall concepts, training etc. affect the way troops behaved on the field? Off course they did, I don't see how this can be argued. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one don't think there is any way to argue this point. But in a given situation, who is to say what the results would be, to what degree, how likely, etc? And based on what body of evidence? Surely pulling a few quotes out of context is not adequate enough evidence to suggest significant changes in game modeling?

One of the problems with National Modifiers is that there could be hundreds of cases to be made (right, wrong, and otherwise) for each nation. For example, German troops were largely considered to be illprepared to fight in the forests of the Soviet Union. There is a lot of evidence that the Germans didn't "like" to fight in those surroundings. But what does that mean in CM terms? And should it apply to ALL German troops ALL the time, or just some of them in certain situations?

This line of thinking is self destructive. There is no end to this road once set upon. Therefore, eliminating the possibility of ANY National Modifier is far more realistic than implementing random people's personal pet opinions. Especially since the differences in combat effectiveness was most likely subtle and not all that relevant to a single firefight.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, in other games like Steel Panthers I see nobody complaining that it is nationalistic to have US Marines and Japs to surrender less seldom than other troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... but these same gamers also don't complain about the lack of turret rotation factors, the inherent problems of IGO-UGO game system, the poor modeling of armor and ballistics, etc. Reason? Because these gamers either have outdated expectiations or don't care about the inaccuracies. Either is fine with us, but we wish to move things forward and break with sterotyping of the past.

HOWEVER, in the case of the tendency for Japanese troops to die rather than surrender is such a significant, well documented, and culturally traditional trait that it would be hard to simulate the PTO without it. We were recently reading about some Japanese soldiers that remained on their own for 30-40 years after the war. Rather than surrender they lived hidden in the jungles. This is so extreme a behavioral difference from "Western" culture that it really must be looked at.

Another example of where "national bias" swings soundly over to "national difference" is again found with the Japanese. The same code of conduct that allowed so many Japanese soldiers and civilians to choose death over surrender/retreat is very clearly evidenced with Kamakazi pilots.

So, if we don't simulate some sort of adversity to surrender, there is no way to simulate Kamakazis. Since they were a fact, which NOBODY would even attempt to dispute, this sets it apart from selective quoting of a few remarks from out of context statements. However, if we were to simulate this type of behavior we would look very deeply to determine how to do so accurately. We would not just say "all Japanese troops, of all types in all situations for all years, will not surrender". That is the wrong way to do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But how come it is nationalist or racist to suggest the same thing in the way Tero has done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is more than just this discussion. Tero has been at the heart of a few of these exchanges before. I suggest it is more the WAY in which he presents his case more than what he is asking to be changed. Plenty of people have suggested national modifiers, but I can't think of many that caused this sort of exchange of words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, now that I think off, there are some nationall traits that could be easilly implemented in the game, that have come up in this discussion. German officers and troops were loud, so hearing markers could be implemented more for German infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, we can't start picking and choosing people pet suggestions which are not fully documented, explored, and substantiated. I have heard plenty of "x nationality was well know for y behavior" examples before. Very often they are not accompanied by substantial evidence, nor a close examination of the faults of the other forces in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finnish artillery had good maps and they had done scrupulous work beforehand so with every Finnish FO you could get also few TRP's even on attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... this is something different. If it could be substantiated that Finnish artillery was able to come down faster and more accurately than the norm, then it would not be wrong to simulate this reality. Look at CMBO right now and you can see that US off map artillery comes down quicker than German off map artillery. Is this a national bias? No, it is a product of the system each country used. It is no more wrong to do this than to penalize a 2 man tank turret compared to a 3 man turret. The systems are systems, not national traits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one have the highest respect for the Finnish forces which fought in WWII (I do not know much about prior conflicts). They would not be an enemy I would have felt comfortable fighting against. And the fact that the Soviets also felt this way (that is what the evidence suggests to me anyway) is more than significant. But this has nothing to do with this discussion

Steve

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Since no one accused the Finns on this board of being a nationalist, there is no need for an apology. Individuals have grabbed nationalist and possibly racist torches (depending on how you define terms) and been called on it by Vanir, myself, and maybe a dozen other people including BTS. I even pointed out that sexist commentary ill behooved anyone here, but no one ever said the Finns as a people were all nationalists.

Now, maybe people are getting hot because no communication is getting through and some shoddy evidence was pushed forward to support Finnish racial / national superiority and American inferiority (hard to racially insult the US when the country has every race on the planet in its borders), but no one ever said that the Finns on this list are nationalists, only that select individuals are.

In fact, and number of Finns (Jarmo, etc.) have added to various discussions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is getting a bit tedious now, can't help that. You seemed to lose my point, which I admit was a bit subbtle, but none the less important. When you throw that kind of accusations against any person, you should also bring the evidence even with good deal of benefit of doubt. I can't help feeling that these very grievous accusations are based mostly or solely on the claim 1 mentioned in the previous post, and if I happen to more or less agree with that claim, I feel I too am targeted, as well as many others. Can you see the logic here?

I believe I have read all these gone to ûberfinn-threads quite closely, and all racial issues have come up only in postings by other than finns, and nothing Tero has said is very difficult to see as nationalist or racist, whatever one means by these words. In this context I think comparison to aryan brotherhood even by analogy is totally uncalled for. As You said, one would expect especially americans as a multinational (and litigative) nation to be very sensitive and carefull about any accusations concerning racism. More over, I fail to see the need for any ad hominem attacks...

[Tero]

>So you'd go for some across-the-board

>penalty for US troops in some form or

>another. OK. In what way? And at what

>quantified level?

Suppression thresholds and spotting abilities of the US troops.

>Based on how many references, and properly

>cross-referenced to account for counter-

>arguments?

So far two. No counter arguments have been made. None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.

>Fixated, or adjusting through the months of

>1942-45?

Adjusting through the months. That would seem to be the indicated progress according to my source, which puts the doctrine chance around December 1944 (latter half of the war).

>So, okay, you've staked out that you want

>nationality modifiers.

To TacAI automated responces to stimuli to account for diffences in tactics and doctrine. Just to make sure we are on the level with that.

>BTS has staked out that you're not going to

>get them, using far more compelling reasons

>than you have offered.

I do not believe that ALL armies responded EXACTLY the same way in ALL situations to the same battlefield stimuli, the ONLY determining factor being their experience level.

>I'm glad that BTS (Steve) has been willing

>to articulate the standards it strives for

>here, arguing against stock nationality

>shifts as applied down to squad or single-

>man level in wargames.

The operative phrase being "as applied down to squad or single-man level in wargames". I agree with him in that. These two corraborative statements I use are representative of both the German and the US tactics and doctrine and how they predisposed their troops to respond to battlefield stimuli differently, regarless of their experience level.

>If you want uber-Finns & uber-Germans, roll

>up your sleeves and work with the scenario

>design parameters, and make them yourself

>in your own scenarios.

I an NOT advocating any über-Anybody to be modelled in the game. I am challenging the premise that all things are equal in the terms of training and lessons learned.

>The "fitness" factor for CM2 is another new

>variable you'll get to play around with.

Yes. Interesting prospects

>You can keep whipping out Dupuy (or even

>Weigley or Creveld) to make your case that

>US troops should get across-the-board

>negative modifiers.

I hope you do not call it a negative modifier only because it happens to be the US troops that are the subject of this debate.

And the modification would not necessarily be across the board. It could be applied the indicated factors only.

>Others here could whip out Ambrose or

>Doubler to counter such assertions.

Yes. But so far there has been only hyperventilation with no counterfacts to overthrow the two statements I use as my base.

I do know how flimsy that base is...

>My added point here is that I don't trust

>for any one author to make all of my case---

>-not Dupuy nor Doubler (and certainly not

>Ambrose!).

What about the relevant US Army records, training manuals and AAR's ?

>Keep on arguing for "nationality" for CM if

>you want, but BTS has laid it out ad

>nauseum that it's an argument you'll still

>lose.

Well, they DID write the code so they are the keepers of the keys.

[Battlefront.com]

Kallmikahos,

Slapdragon's point was not that Tero is akin to a member of the Aryan Brotherhood exactly, rather that his style of debate is similar. We have seen the same type of debate about a lot of features, especially the oh-so-wonderful "optics" debate And that is latching onto some selective comments and ignoring their context in order to support a preconceived notion. In such a debates it is more important to continue support of the belief rather than to re-examine the issue.

Having said that, I think Slapdragon would have served his point better by not bringing the Aryan Brotherhood into it as it was inflamatory.

Now... to be fair... every nationality has its "über" group. Lord knows we have been bashed pretty hard by people that think the Allies have been shortchanged in favor of our pro-German treatment of the game (yeah, right!). We are also constantly pestered by the "über German" crowd many times over. And in some cases, even an "über Finn" opinion or two comes to light. I myself have seen Tero put forth such arguments. Does this make Tero a bad person? No, I don't think so. But when I see comments by him such as...

"And a single shot from a K98k would drive the entire US platoon to ground and they would look for a sniper for minutes before they dare to move on. Is that now modelled in the game?"

...my opinion of his research and reasoning abilities does drop, however, as my opinion would of someone who stated that "the Germans were tactically inflexible because that was the Nazi way" or "Soviet soldiers just bumbled their way forward, never really developing decent tactical doctrine".

At best these types of statements show ignorance, at worst they are "racist" for lack of a better term. Really what is meant is "x nation is inherently better/worse than y nation". And that is when feathers start to get ruffled. Such sentiments have NO place in rational discussions of combat effectiveness.

Steve

[Tero]

>Used correctly (as it often was, btw) under

>the right circumstances, it was a

>hellacious god-awful suppressor.

I agree. But the debate is about what constituted correct use and what were the right circumstances.

>At 60m, especially in village and forest, I

>believe the MP to be superior. But that

>isn't how most of the war was fought. Not

>all Germans had MPs anyway, far from it.

Agreed. That is why I was surprised to find those statements about US infantry not being used as direct fire suppression assets. I had always assumed that would have been the sensible thing to do with a semi-auto rifle such as the M1. Much like the TD doctrine of the US armoured forces the tactics and doctrine used were not in step with the requirements of the battlefield.

>In other words, unless they encountered a

>company exclusively armed with MP44s, the

>American rifle company could put out more

>shoulder-fired suppression than any

>comparable organization in the war.

Yes. But the question is was it used for suppression ?

>Training and doctrine were the reason that

>this was not fully exploited at first. Once

>recognized as a deficiency, it was

>corrected at the unit level by individual

>commanders on an increasingly widespread

>basis (Doubler).

Thank you.

>Tendency of the fired-upon to go to ground

>is hardly unique to American forces (nor

>was it US doctrine). Training, leadership,

>and experience are needed to correct it.

>After St. Lo, many US units were retrained

>behind the front in "new" techniques to

>storm specific objectives. They also

>learned to coordinate delivery of HE

>(direct and indirect) more effectively in

>the time-honored American practice of

>substituting material for lives when

>possible, a practice I happen to support.

Thank you for the support.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So far two. No counter arguments have been made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you don't read what other people write... I guess you are correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me a break. You took two quotes out of their context and without looking at what the authors were actually talking about. Many people, including me, have directly challenged your "evidence". Yet you sit there as if you have proven that God exists or that the world is actually flat?

I'm outta here... I've got far better things to do with my time. And going around tossing in whatever biases people come up with is not one of them.

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

Steve:

>Ah... this is something different. If it

>could be substantiated that Finnish

>artillery was able to come down faster and

>more accurately than the norm, then it

>would not be wrong to simulate this

>reality. Look at CMBO right now and you can

>see that US off map artillery comes down

>quicker than German off map artillery. Is

>this a national bias? No, it is a product

>of the system each country used. It is no

>more wrong to do this than to penalize a 2

>man tank turret compared to a 3 man turret. >The systems are systems, not national

>traits.

Now this is interesting, I hadn't noticed this before... I bet Tero jumps to this. One might argue that the line between system and trait or whatever the word is for acceptaple/nonaccepaple is at least not allways very clear.

Even the system might fail on numerous occasions, and as Steve says later about japanese, there should allways be room for some randomness and failure in even the best systems. I don't know if this is now modelled in american artillery, or german or CW, for that matter. By this I don't mean that I would want to take this "bias" away from americans, and I will gladly accept it for the Finns.

But if it is implemented, how should it be modelled? I'm not expert and far from a grog, but to my understanding Finns excelled especially in cartografy (=TRP's), and during the attack face in Eastern Karelia the situation was much worse than on homeground. And if I understood right, another set back compared to US, was that Finns relied on phone lines but US used radios for calling artillery. Phone lines were cut of easily.

Now that I got Steves attention, I might try for couple of questions. Will soviet artillery be modelled after similar "system" as other nations, and how is that realized in game terms?

There's another thread whear it is claimed, that assaulting tanks withs infantry, with or without AT assets, is unrealistically difficult in the current CMBO (it was supposedly easier in earlier versions). Do you aggree and if so, will this be corrected in CMBB. I recall to have heard something about common units with speciall AT-training? This sound good plausible solution, but how is this modelled in gameterms and in OB's? Have you yet had chance to try this in betatesting? Reason I ask, in all the war games so far Finns have had no AT-capabilities or they have been modelled as ûber-tankkillers with molotov cocktails. I don't like either choise and I hope SMBB will give infantry VS armor battles reasonable chanses for Finns (and others) which would concurr with historical results. This is of course easier said than done, but I have faith in you.

Finall note even more off topic: the only people from whom I accept bashing SP, the game I grew up with, are the makers of CM, they have earned that right. The many keepers of SP tradition are dedicated people, as is the community with many grogs also there (for good or bad...) SPWAW has had some kind of relative spotting for long time, but I believe BTS will make it better in some future version...