game favors armor way too much

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Bastable:

1. According to soviet doctrine of the time, tanks were not anti-tank tools. Tanks make great value for money when they are wreaking havoc in enemy's backyard. When you have to use tanks in AT role, it means you made a mistake. Germans were forced to use tanks in that role extensively, and it was not good for them. So, when you compare strictly tanks to tanks, you are misleading yourself. You should compare combination of tanks, SP guns, AT guns, strike a/c and artillery.

Yes quite, must be why the T-34 were upgraded to the 8,5cm cannon and up armoured when the Panther/Tiger appeared, not forgetting Soviet attempts in fitting the 10cm gun to the T-34 once the anti armour performance of the 8,5cm vs. Panthers proved... disappointing. Again why the Soviets pre-eminate break through tank was armed with a long 12,2cm gun as opposed to a short one which would be cheaper to manufacture and lighter while reducing overhang meaning that even more armour could be added while losing nothing in HE capability or speed. The development of IS 1, IS 2 and IS 3 were instigated by presumed deficiencies of the design vs. German tanks not because the IS 1 was any easier to knock out with PaK 40s and fausts relative to the IS 2. The Soviets were explicitly caught up in an ever-spiralling tank gun/armour race with the Germans. To argue other wise is somewhat disingenuous.

German tanks after 1941 and meeting the T-34 were designed for the express purpose of defeating other tanks and how the Panzertruppen were trained and prepared for battle. The number of infantry and guns that German Tank aces ‘scored’ comes a distant second when giving accolades compared total number of Tanks they killed. German tanks were not ‘forced’ into meeting Soviet AFV to there disadvantage, it was their primary operational characteristic even as early as 1942 with the PIV Lang Ausf F2 and G’s

The only army with the actual doctrine and equipment to fight tanks as pure break through machines, religiously avoiding combat with enemy tanks was the USA with its stubby 7,5cm gun and for the time unrivalled reliability on road marches.

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Skipper:

1. According to soviet doctrine of the time, tanks were not anti-tank tools. Tanks make great value for money when they are wreaking havoc in enemy's backyard. When you have to use tanks in AT role, it means you made a mistake.

Sounds very much like the American doctrine. Ask any old Sherman driver how well that worked out in real combat.

------------------

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-09-2001).]

[Guest tero]

>I know firsthand what the road network was like around Vuoksa/Ladoga in 1980s - after they built quite a few more roads FROM THE EAST.

I trust you are aware that the Mannerheim line was never breached at the Lake Ladoga end. The breach was done in the Gulf of Finland end which was far better tank country.

BTW: the same patter was replicated during the summer of 1944 Soviet assault. At the Lake Ladoga end the defenders widrew to roughly the same positions that had been the Mannerheim line while the Gulf of Finland end collapsed and the defences ended up holding around the same terrain the Winter War fighting ended up.

>Again: Mannerheim line was a well-prepared defensive position, 80 km wide by 30 km deep, in antitank terrain, impossible to outflank, and presenting severe logistical difficulties to the troops advancing from USSR territory.

BULL !!! Soviet propaganda to hide the incompetence with which the initial preparations were made.

"Well prepared positions" consisted of, like tss stated, two simple trench lines with pill boxed and bunkers spaced too far apart and too often there were no interlocking fields of fire.

"80 kilometers wide": from the shores of Lake Ladoga to the shores of the Gulf of Finland.

"30 kilometers deep": BULL !!! RKKA covered the first 28 kilometers in a few days and it took them roughly two months to manage the last 2 kilometers and beyond.

>Also defended by people with attitude.

That one is true.

>It would not be a walkover for any army of the era, including Wehrmacht.

I trust you are aware STAVKA had all the positions in the Mannerheim line pinpointed and mapped to within meters well before they started the attack. Nobody did not think of getting the data from GRU (?) as they trusted the Finnish army in its state was no match for the glorious RKKA. With PROPER preparations the line would have been breached far sooner. Even with the human wave tactics they used. Given the conditions even the Wehrmacht would have had a rough going but I think they would have been more thorough and less hopefull in their preparations.

>Penknife story, typical.

Yet the story is fully indicative of the fact that the dragon teeth and the bolder WERE too short and were not stopping the tanks while they gave the attacking infantry cover.

>When and where the snow is that deep, large scale offensive operations are nearly impossible, anyway.

Yet RKKA persisted with the human wave attacks for the whole of December and early January until it had depleted all stocks and exhausted the troops. It took until the latter half of February to fill up the stocks and regroup for the final assault that did breach the Mannerheim line.

>Even if your tanks can go through thanks to wide tracks, your everything else will be stuck dead.

No T-34's with wide tracks then.

>In reallife tanks were colliding with those boulders all the time, which did not do any good to the tracks and suspension.

Yet Finnish veterans keep maintaining how their months long efforts to raise the bolders and dragon teeth were for nought when the snow covered the ground and the tanks simply drove over the obstacles without any difficulties.

>Are you trying to convince me that for any decent army Mannerheim line was easy pickings, and RKKA could not punch through because it was worse than average?

Not because it was worse than average. The planners did not expect any real resistance and the planned accordingly. They payed the price in 3 000 tanks lost or disabled and around 130 000 - 200 000 KIA.

>Tell you what, an average army of the time (1939) would not even think about punching through the Mannerheim Line, let alone try it and eventually succeed.

Given the terrain tactical conditions in the region ANY army wanting to occupy Finland from that direction would have taken the Isthmus route. The Soviet attempts further North were doomed from start but they did tie up troops that would have been needed in the Isthmus defences.

>That is not an exactly true statement,

Yes it is. Please give your source that states otherwise.

>but you are correct - germans had no considerable ground forces there until 1944.

The Germans had absolutely NO troops in the Karelian Isthmus before June 1944.

And even then most of them were not in the Isthmus proper but defending the western shore of the bay of Viipuri.

>And this is exactly my point - they did not bother to mount any operations in that area, and basically relied on finns to hold the line.

No, nonononono. The Finnish High Command did not allow any German troops into the Karelian Isthmus. That was because our political axiom was we were not a treath to Leningrad. Had we allowed German troops into the Isthmus we would have lost face and all the political and diplomatic efforts would have been useless. I trust you are aware the first Finnish peace feelers were sent in late 1943.

>Now, somebody will say that upon reacquiring what they thought was their own, finns simply had no desire to go any further. Yeah, I almost believe that...

Typical responce from a man who refuses to accept the fact that war is an extension of politics and that it is after all the duely elected politicians (in a true democracy) who determine the war goals. The army is just a tool.

Please answer these questions:

-could the Germans have taken Leningrad if the Finnish troops had actually helped them with the initial assault and the/or subsequent siege ?

-why didn't the Finnish army complete the siege of Leningrad by attacking over the River Svir ?

-of Stalins European enemies how many remained independent after the war, with the pre-war government in power and with the pre-war form of government is use ?

-name the capitals of the European nations that took part in the war that were NOT occupied by foreign troops during or after the war ?

-name the nations that sided with Germany during Barbarossa that the USA did NOT deglare war on ?

[Lacky]

Originally posted by tero:

Please answer these questions:

-could the Germans have taken Leningrad if the Finnish troops had actually helped them with the initial assault and the/or subsequent siege ?

I believe so. If the Finnish would allowed Hilter to use airbases and deploy an Infantry Corp into Finland, the chances are quite good the Soviets would have been defeated at Leningrad from a combined attack from the north and south.

-why didn't the Finnish army complete the siege of Leningrad by attacking over the River Svir?

Politics and the lack of manpower.

-of Stalins European enemies how many remained independent after the war, with the pre-war government in power and with the pre-war form of government is use ?

Stalin didn't have any european allies to start with. The Soviet Union's foreign treaty policy was very thin. We already known Stalin was planning on attacking western Europe. Hilter's attack on the Soviet Union threw a wrench into Stalin's plans and the end result was a unified Europe.

-name the capitals of the European nations that took part in the war that were NOT occupied by foreign troops during or after the war ?

Helsinki and London

-name the nations that sided with Germany during Barbarossa that the USA did NOT deglare war on ?

Rumania, Hungary, Spain, Austria, Finland, Czechoslovakia

[This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 02-12-2001).]

[Skipper]

>> That is not an exactly true statement,

> Yes it is. Please give your source that

> states otherwise.

Cant recall exactly. iirc vaguely, a memoir of somebody who was recon company commander in the area. It might be not about the Isthmus, though. He said that there were some germans in the area (observers? advisers? - whatever), but basically it was finnish position.

>> Yeah, I almost believe that...

> Typical responce from a man ...

You know what? Although it is said that noone was ever convinced to change his opinion on an Internet forum, I do start to believe what you say. Given what happened after WWII, it makes some sense. Of course, I always look at the war as "diplomacy by other means" - although it is not exactly so when people become really angry.

Regarding the tanks on tanks thing. Again, somebody misinterprets what is said and starts ridiculing his own interpretation. You interpretation is indeed ridiculous. What was said was that you jhave to count many things apart from tanks to get a real picture of anti-tank capabilities.

There were several very specific orders by soviet high command, that prescribed commanders to avoid use of tanks as anti-tank means whenever there was a choice.

It does not mean, that tanks were never used in that role, or that it was completely unimportant. However, upgrading the caliber of tank guns had as much to do with penetration, as with HE punch, there were examples when the former was traded for the latter in the design.

[Guest tero]

>I believe so. If the Finnish would allowed Hilter to use airbases and deploy an Infantry Corp into Finland, the chances are quite good the Soviets would have been defeated at Leningrad from a combined attack from the north and south.

Yes. And no. There WERE German troops and planes stationed in Finland. However, their operational sector was far North in Lapland. Their task was to attack (and take) Murmansk. The Finnish leaders refused to attack Leningrad. The Finnish army stopped at the pre-1940 border on the Isthmus and stayed there until 1944.

½ pts

>Politics and the lack of manpower.

Yes. 1 pt

>Stalin didn't have any european allies to start with. The Soviet Union's foreign treaty policy was very thin. We already known Stalin was planning on attacking western Europe. Hilter's attack on the Soviet Union threw a wrench into Stalin's plans and the end result was a unified Europe.

Please answer the question. 0 pts

>Helsinki and London

You forgot Moscow. ½ pt

>Rumania, Hungary, Spain, Austria, Finland, Czechoslovakia

Romania: deglared war on USA December 13th 1941 0 pt

Hungary: deglared war on USA December 13th 1941 0 pt

Spain: sided with everybody so I do not think they count with only one token division taking part in Barbarossa ½ pt

Austria: annexed by Germany in 1938 so it does not qualify 0 pt

Czechoslovakia: annexed by Germany in 1938 so it does not qualify 0 pt

Finland: 1 pt

Grand total: 3½ pts

Verdict: back to the library to do some reading.

[Guest tero]

>Cant recall exactly. iirc vaguely, a memoir of somebody who was recon company commander in the area. It might be not about the Isthmus, though. He said that there were some

germans in the area (observers? advisers? - whatever), but basically it was finnish position.

There were German troops in Lapland. Their task was to attack Murmansk. Given their performance you REALLY think the Finnish army could use advice from the Germans in tactics to be used in the sort of terrain ?

>You know what? Although it is said that noone was ever convinced to change his opinion on an Internet forum, I do start to believe what you say.

Never say never.

>Given what happened after WWII, it makes some sense.

Of course.

There are always two sides to the story. While the victor writes the history it does not mean it is always true. Or that it even remotely resembles the actual events.

>Of course, I always look at the war as "diplomacy by other means" - although it is not exactly so when people become really angry.

That is what separates the political survivors from the casualties. If you are able to keep your cool you have better chances in surviving the ordeal. Lucky for us the more moderate people had the control of the helm instead of the more vehement bigots. Nowadays even here in Finland you hear statements that argue how our troops should have aided the Germans take Leningrad. They tend to forget the war was far from won and the cons outweight the pros beyond imagination of modern people.

[tss]

tero wrote:

Yes. And no. There WERE German troops and planes stationed in Finland. However, their operational sector was far North in Lapland.

There was also that one division whose number I always forget (it was the 16[369]rd|th|th division) in Ladoga Karelia front.

In particular, that division was to be the first unit to attack over River Svir, and the Finnish units would only follow after that. However, when the German attack South of Leningrad was stopped, the river crossing was first postponed and then abandoned.

I can't remember how long that division was in Finland, but I think it was transferred away in '42 or '43.

Vänrikki (2nd Lt.) Sakari Nieminen served as a forward observer in a heavy artillery batallion in the area. In his memoirs he tells that he had been assigned to go over Svir in the first wave with the Germans. He thought that the assigment would have been a certain one-way trip to heaven.

- Tommi

[Guest tero]

>There was also that one division whose number I always forget (it was the 16[369]rd|th|th division) in Ladoga Karelia front.

I think it was the 163rd. But is off the seat of my pants.

But I take it you DO agree the duties it performed were not very vital. I think that it was even kept some distance behind the front line most of the time. It was a token force while the German main effort was most definitively in the North.

Any Russian memoire stating the Karelian forests were filled with Germans is a cock and bull story, at least in my view. It must have been an incredible bunch of coincidencies if they kept on running into the Germans on a regular basis, what with most of the formations in the area being most definitively Finnish.

Then again the Germans must have been both louder and easier targets for any LRRP raids in that kind of terrain....

>In particular, that division was to be the first unit to attack over River Svir, and the Finnish units would only follow after that.

I wonder why....

>However, when the German attack South of Leningrad was stopped, the river crossing was first postponed and then abandoned.

I do not recall having seen the German division prominently mentioned when the fate of the river crossing has been discussed.

>I can't remember how long that division was in Finland, but I think it was transferred away in '42 or '43.

I think it was in the mid-1942 when the static phase started.

>He thought that the assigment would have been a certain one-way trip to heaven.

Just goes to show how confident the Finnish soldier was over the proficiency of the Germans. I remember one anecdote about a joint attack on a Soviet strong point, might have been anytime between 1941 and 1943. All went well while the forces were advancing towards the positions. When they were near and getting ready to assault it this German officer blows his whistle and with it the surprise attack. Later on the Finnish troops almost lynched the poor officer.