Better Sharpshooters for the Soviets?

[Enoch]

BTS, my sharpshooter won't shoot at an enemy company HQ at 2000 yards. Please fix or somefink!

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hey! The finns DID stop that attack. So now it's two against one. Tough luck for the Glantz fella.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What no smiley's Jarmo?, your gonna confuse us that you actualy meant the above

Regards, John Waters

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

tero asked: “Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?”

Slapdragon said: “273.15 degrees.”

Here is why. If the thread gets the idea that 273.15 degrees F is equal to 0ºC instead of out of the ball park once in the lifetime temperature, then we are looking forward to a hundred threads that propose to make this or that temperature, or all temperatures more hot, or able to heat at much higher temperatures, and less likely to cool, etc.

People already tend to take the extremes in things like Kelvin and Celsius, Fahrenheit, personal bravery of thermometers, and hold them up as norms. Then when CM, which is based on norms and not extremes is played, they are dismayed when degrees Celsius kills a Degrees Fahrenheit, their air conditioners retreat in confusion, and their refrigerators bounces one off a ice cube tray. So when people hold up an extreme that is 5 degree hotter from the normal temperature of boiling water, it is important to disabuse people who will take this fact uncritically.

This is especially important since there would be a dozen threads following this one complaining about thermometers and calling May-Tag repairmen a bunch of satan worshipers and calling for the massive increase in a degrees Fahrenheit’s ability because "I read 0 degrees Celsius equals 273.15 degree Fahrenheit." Better to present the facts out right now rather than let it simmer.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

ooophs. sorry forgot the smiley

[PzKpfw 1]

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

[QB]>Glantz... tero. Glantz... tero.

>

>That's a toughie. I'll have to think about

>this for a while when I get home

Do not take my word for it. Look the stuff I claim up for yourselves. Glantz uses Soviet sources, I use Finnish sources.

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And their it is in a nutshell . Imagine that, We have 2 Countries with 2 difrent veiws of what happened in 1944. .....

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

ROFLMAOPMP Matthew.....

Regards, John Waters

[Eric Alkema]

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

Since we have not seen the sniper, we have no idea how good it will be in comparison to a sharpshooter in the game. However, if you want to simulate one, try an elite sharpshooter. It is just that instead of giving the Finnish or the Russians or the Germans a bonus for being ubertruppen with brass conjones, you can use the mechanism provided in the game to simulate different levels of quality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! So far we have one correct answer. Because CM is set up to make you pay points based on the combat effectiveness of each unit (not its rarity or any other sillyness), if you want ubertruppen, you have to pay uber-prices to get them. Like Slapdragon suggested, the sniper would be a new unit with better stealth and range and lethality based on the weapon used by his or her nationality.

Did snipers work in pairs or alone? Did they use spotters? If they used spotters, that will cause a problem because if they take a casualty, it will matter which guy bought it. It isn't like the spotter could pick up the rifle and keep shooting with the same accuracy.

[Gyrene]

Modern Snipers do not engage targets beyond 1000 meters with rifles. Correct.

US Snipers claim not to use the Barret's .50 against human targets, but they do engage hard targets at 1500m + regularly.

There are no modern Snipers in CM. There should not be, my initial suggestion should be re-read as "Should the Soviets get cheaper Sharpshooters" to simulate their larger number of available sharpshooters.

I agree with all comments that an Elite sharpshooter will do the job.

Me asking for longer engagement ranges for Sov shooters is unhistorical, from the little more that I've been able to gather, their engagement ranges were no longer than anyone else's.

BTW, let it be known that I never asked sharpshooters to be able to hit anything at 2500 yards.

Gyrene

[Jeff Duquette]

This is from an essay written for B.H. Liddell Hart’s “The Red Army”. The essay was written by Colonel G.I. Antonov, “The Red Army in The Finish War”. Col. Antonov was an infantry NCO in the Tsarist Army during WWI and later became in officer in the Red Army and served during: The Winter War, The Polish Campaign of 39, and the Russo-German War 41-45.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sniping was much used in the Finnish Army. Their snipers are very bold, and excellent shots. They were able to get their man at distances of 800 - 1,000 metres or more. These snipers often took cover in trees with a good view, and showed great restraint—they fired but rarely, and never missed. Their chief object was to knock out the commanders of our units. Our troops called them 'cuckoos' and feared them most.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Tero]

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

Saint Tero......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Slap, if you are not a formal representative of the Vatican your nomination will not be official.

And I think I will be required to perform 3 miracles after I am dead anyway to qualify. You will NOT get rid of me that easy...

[Desantnik]

Soviet snipers were just quantuty? Well check this little chart out:

http://wio.newmail.ru/tank/sniper.htm

Women snipers alone were responsible for annihilating about a devision in total... i dont think anyone but Haya can be put at the top of that list to represent non soviet snipers.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What no smiley's Jarmo?, your gonna confuse us that you actualy meant the above <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somewhat. Actually I could go into a great lengthy debate about this, but not in a sharpshooter thread...

[Freak]

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

tero asked: “Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?”

Slapdragon said: “273.15 degrees.”

Here is why. If the thread gets the idea that 273.15 degrees F is equal to 0ºC instead of out of the ball park once in the lifetime temperature, then we are looking forward to a hundred threads that propose to make this or that temperature, or all temperatures more hot, or able to heat at much higher temperatures, and less likely to cool, etc.

People already tend to take the extremes in things like Kelvin and Celsius, Fahrenheit, personal bravery of thermometers, and hold them up as norms. Then when CM, which is based on norms and not extremes is played, they are dismayed when degrees Celsius kills a Degrees Fahrenheit, their air conditioners retreat in confusion, and their refrigerators bounces one off a ice cube tray. So when people hold up an extreme that is 5 degree hotter from the normal temperature of boiling water, it is important to disabuse people who will take this fact uncritically.

This is especially important since there would be a dozen threads following this one complaining about thermometers and calling May-Tag repairmen a bunch of satan worshipers and calling for the massive increase in a degrees Fahrenheit’s ability because "I read 0 degrees Celsius equals 273.15 degree Fahrenheit." Better to present the facts out right now rather than let it simmer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Mathew!!!

[Tero]

>If ppl have problems with WTC's depiction of

>Finlands defeat, then why not contact Glantz

>etc & take it up with him?.

The damage is already done.

>As to Finlands action's in 1944 it all boils

>down to, who you choose to believe, Ie, the

>Soviet's claim very little trouble with the

>operation, & were even able to pull out

>their offensive forces, ahead of the

>timetable.

>

>The Finns according to Tero in his typical

>every Finn is uber fashion claim to

>have stopped them cold. Who to believe .

Please check the timeline before you believe the "true story" corraborated by Glantz using ONLY Soviet sources.

First Finnish peace feelers were sent out in the end of 1943.

The assault started June 10th, Viipuri fell June 20th, July 11th STAVKA ordered the forces in the Isthmus to deploy and dig in in defensive positions, the final assaults were beaten back in the Isthmus by July 18th and two Soviet divisions (289D and 176D) were encirceled and routed in Ilomantsi (north of lake Ladoga) in August 1st-9th effectively stopping the Soviet assault there. Cease fire in place September 4-5th, the Soviets fire 19 500 arty rounds during the last 24 hrs, just like they did when the Winter War ended (they say a last show of force, we say a childish tantrum). Peace treaty is signed September 19th.

The war ended pretty much along the same front lines as the Winter War had ended.

If our army was totally beaten and we were desperately begging for peace wouldn't you think there would have been less of these wide gaps of several weeks (up to a month) between the events in the time line ?

We had sustained serious casualties and were looking for a way out of the war. We were out of breath but we had not been totally beaten. Luckily for us Stalin had bigger fish to catch and fry so he could be "magnanimous" with us. But only because he could not spare the troops for the occupation and the querilla war that would have ensued.

Our army did not surrender to the enemy, it was demobilized. Helsinki was one of the three warring European capitals (the others were London and Moscow) which were not occupied by a foreign power during or after the war.

[Tero]

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

tero asked: “Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?”

Slapdragon said: “273.15 degrees.”

Here is why. If the thread gets the idea that 273.15 degrees F is equal to 0ºC instead of out of the ball park once in the lifetime temperature, then we are looking forward to a hundred threads that propose to make this or that temperature, or all temperatures more hot, or able to heat at much higher temperatures, and less likely to cool, etc.

People already tend to take the extremes in things like Kelvin and Celsius, Fahrenheit, personal bravery of thermometers, and hold them up as norms. Then when CM, which is based on norms and not extremes is played, they are dismayed when degrees Celsius kills a Degrees Fahrenheit, their air conditioners retreat in confusion, and their refrigerators bounces one off a ice cube tray. So when people hold up an extreme that is 5 degree hotter from the normal temperature of boiling water, it is important to disabuse people who will take this fact uncritically.

This is especially important since there would be a dozen threads following this one complaining about thermometers and calling May-Tag repairmen a bunch of satan worshipers and calling for the massive increase in a degrees Fahrenheit’s ability because "I read 0 degrees Celsius equals 273.15 degree Fahrenheit." Better to present the facts out right now rather than let it simmer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree in principle.

I do too have my doubts about using only May-Tag repairmen. But for a different reason. They are thought to be inherently superior and they are most certainly nationally biased. Furthermore their solution to the problem is not the only solution around, (even if may be the simplest one). I have no objections to their use in principle only because they choose to believe in things I personally do not believe in. I am not saying that may not be a significant factor but that is debateable.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

And their it is in a nutshell . Imagine that, We have 2 Countries with 2 difrent veiws of what happened in 1944. .....

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite.

But which one is true/correct ? Should one accept one and dismiss the other only because the one you choose to accept is the one that has been presented using one sided or irrelevant (fruits of the poisoned tree) sources ? Why not take into account the testimony of one the participant at all ? Why rely only in the testimony of his embittered bed fellow or his embittered enemy when you are talking about his behaviour ? There must be a reason for this. I have my suspicions but lets leave it at that.

This is what has happend to us. No official Finnish statistics and bits of data have ever been used when our involvement in the war has been discussed outside Finland. For example only Molotovs minimum (~40 000) and Khrustsevs maximum (one million) loss figures for the Red Army during Winter War have been stated but I bet you have never seen the Finnish war time estimate of the Red Army losses.

These estimates made right after the Winter War were 200 000 Red Army KIA and 1 200 tanks KO'd.

The most recent "verified" KIA total is ~130 000 and the number of KO'd tanks is over 3 000. When you look at them without any biases as statistical figures you can only say that the original estimate was very accurate indeed. Statistically the error is so small that original estimate does remain valid, as an estimate.

It may seem like propaganda to claim that we lost 26 000 KIA and a few AFV's while we inflicted 200 000 KIA and took out 1 200 tanks. Now we can prove scientifically we sustained 26 000 KIA and a few tanks and inflicted ~130 000 KIA and took out over 1 200 tanks (total losses over 3 000 to all causes).

Look up the data. Draw your own conclusions. Do not believe all the revered historians like Glantz write.

Mannerheim was a hero of the Russian civil war my ass.

The data I used can be seen at:

www.winterwar.com

[Soddball]

Why do you Finns have such a bee in your bonnet about this whole thing?

[Jarmo]

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

Why do you Finns have such a bee in your bonnet about this whole thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cause that's important part of our recent history. A bit like where Brits didn't really win the battle of britain, germans just didn't see the fight worthy of their attention.

[Tero]

>Why do you Finns have such a bee in your

>bonnet about this whole thing?

How would you feel if someone stated, on a solid autohority (for years and years), that William Wallace was an English hero ? Or that Horatio Nelson was hero of the French revolution. Or that Ulysses S. Grant was a hero of the Confederates ?

It is hard to find the correct analogy that would show how insultive the statements and factoids presented about our involvenemt in the conflict are.

Sometimes they are basically correct but they do not represent the whole truth. Sometimes they are totally wrong but they persist as axioms. The entire structure of truths, half-truths and lies around the matter would come crashing down if our side of the story was told.

It is easier to use oversimplifications like the statement "Finland was a Nazi Ally" than tell the entire story starting from the Winter War and how the French and the English governments promised help but that the promise was only words to counter the indignation caused by the fate of Tseckoslovakia and Poland. When we did not lose within the first few weeks they had to act on those words and they started setting up the expedition. That would have given them the iron ore of Sweden to boot. But the problem was we did not ask for any troops, only arms and munitions. The inevitable happened and as we could not count on the expedition to come all the way and indeed be able to fight the Red Army we sued for peace. That left the governments hanging and that resulted in their ultimate demise. But only after the Germans had taken Norway and yet again beaten them, this time not only in the political field but also in the battle field. After that we had very few choices as Molotov asked Hitler for a permission to complete the task they had to abandon because of the fear of coming to blows with the Western powers. Hitler saw an opportunity and said no. But he had blocked the arms shipments going through Germany so the Finnish leaders did not take the bait he offered. No formal treaties were signed. The only concrete "proof" of Finnish alliace is the radio speech Hitler made to announce the start of Barbarossa. He was trying to alianate us from the Western powers and they happily obliged in their rethorics, if not in actions, so that they could make their previous empty promises go away by showing to the public that we were evil after all when we had joined their mortal enemy. That is how we became "Nazi Allies". Oversimplification, omission and distortion.

After the war the various "definitive" histories proofread by the German generals set the pace. And they definitively had an agenda to explain away how their mighty army was soundly beaten by the seemingly inneffective army that could not squash the Finnish army. That is why our expoits, if you will, have been told by the Germans, not by us, in books written by historians like Ziemke. Now Glantz is continuing the trend, only from the Soviet side. And they too definitily have an agenda to explain away how their mighty army could beat the powerfull German army but how they could not squash the Finnish army.

All we want is our day in court so to speak.

It is like your actions are discussed on the coffee table but you are not asked about them at all. Instead the most "knowledgeable" persons heard on the subject happen to be a confidant of your ex and your worst enemy. They are heard as the autohorities that know intimately and accurately all about how you performed and why you acted the way you did. That is why nobody bothers to ask about it from you personally.

And that is what is bothering us (or at least me )

[Tero]

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

Cause that's important part of our recent history. A bit like where Brits didn't really win the battle of britain, germans just didn't see the fight worthy of their attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said.

Damn. That is the analogy I was looking for.

[Tero]

The analogy in full:

The British did not win the Battle of Britain as there was no Battle of Britain, it was merely a boundary dispute between neighbours. The Germans just wanted to secure their channel ports.

The Germans claim they had limited goals all a long and these limited goals were met without any undue difficulties. Lufwaffe losses were light.

Once these limited goals had been satisfactorily met the Luftwaffe discontinued all operations as per orders and ROE set by Hitler prior to Adler Tag.

[PzKpfw 1]

Tero if the Russian's cant even pin down their actual human losses in the Winter war how can the Finns?.

Ok so now we have established that Soviet records are actualy falsified concerning any actions against the Finn's & only Finnish sources are reliable.

Part of the problem lies in, yes the WW was an important historical event for Finland so it gets mega coverage,in Finland but,in the grander scheme Finland's part in WW2 was minor & gets treated as such in most general histories.

Then everytime the subject comes up on troop quality or nationality modifiers; we get told repeatedly how uber Finnish troops were even super human, Ie, 5 Finnish cooks beat off an Soviet tank attack with soup ladels & pot holders, while still makeing sure to season the roast they were cooking, and doing the dishes etc.

When It's brought up 'ya but Finland lost'it gets turned around to, no Finland didn't, the Soviet's beggged for peace, or blameing the Germans, or Finland accepted the Soviet surrender rather then beat up any more poor Russians. Which begs the question why surrender then why not kick the Soviet's back to the Russia & restore the borders.

As to Glantz I said this before why not contact him, enlighten him, to his errors,

his old E-mail adress IIRC used to be Rzhev@ aol.com. he also used to frequent Val's site forums as well. Hell he was even into wargames Ie, he helped a friend of mine do his Novastar EF disc scenerios for SP.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Tero]

>Tero if the Russian's cant even pin down

>their actual human losses in the Winter war

>how can the Finns?.

Know thine enemy. Just because our army was ill equipped it does not mean they were clueless.

Radio listening service (and tapping into their phonelines occasionally) revealed their OOB, orders, sitreps and other data, including losses. You know how many men are in an enemy division so you tally them up and when a new division is brought up you calculate your own ammo usage and then you estimate how much you propably took out from the one that is relieved. Also eyeballing the battlefield in front of your positions gives you a rough idea how many had fallen that day.

The Finnish doctrine dictated that the defensive position should be in the hands of friendly troops at the end of the battle. That worked most of the time so any and all Soviet fallen that remained at the end of the day could be counted and rummaged to see if they rendered any valuable intel.

BTW: if you read your own scanario it assumes the enemy has broken through the MLR and is advancing in the Finnish rear area.

So much for überFinns and their impregnable defences and undefeatable soldiers. Things look serious so what do you do, as a commander of the force ? HERE is where the national modifiers step into the picture.

What usually happened was the armour would push through but the infantry would get stopped and shot up at the MLR (as per Finnish SOP: stop the infantry, it is more dangerous. Isolate the armour from the infantry and deal with the treaths in the order of urgency). In that situation a Finnish commander would gather all available troops for a counterattack. And as you are well aware the arctic day gives daylight from around 9am until 3pm. That means that the tanks would be helpless in the dark in a few hours anyway so they can be left alone to drive around while the counterattack is directed at the infantry at the point of the breach.

When the Red Army got its act together things got more difficult for the Finns. But when during Winter War the situation got gradually worse the summer of 1944 situation fared better because that time around our army had ample supplies of arms and munitions.

>Ok so now we have established that Soviet

>records are actualy falsified concerning

>any actions against the Finn's & only

>Finnish sources are reliable.

I think the records are not falsified. The histories the Soviets wrote were not very true to life because the whole Winter War affair was brushed under the carpet. And as for the assault of the summer of -44, they did not need to get into details with that. Lenigrad was secured and the dominions of the Nazis were beaten into submission in the end and that is all the public needs to know. Right

>Part of the problem lies in, yes the WW was

>an important historical event for Finland

>so it gets mega coverage,in Finland but,in

>the grander scheme Finland's part in WW2

>was minor & gets treated as such in most

>general histories.

That is understandable. But what little is written should resemble the actual events in this day and age. What has made matters worse is the fact that the Cold war rethorics and imagery have prevailed in the histories even if the archives have opened. It seems the historians are timid in making any new conclusions so they stick to the old mantras.

And we have gotten shafted yet again.

I do think Glantz is doing a valuable job in bringing the Soviet archives out. But what bothers me he does not seem to be doing any research based on the archives themselves, only copy/pasting from Soviet histories (mostly Krivosheev but others too). Reading When Titans Clashed really makes me think that he has been overrated as a historian. If I was mean I would say that his is no better than Irving, as a historian that is.

I hope his later books are more academically accomplished.

>Then everytime the subject comes up on

>troop quality or nationality modifiers; we

>get told repeatedly how uber Finnish troops

>were even super human, Ie, 5 Finnish cooks

>beat off an Soviet tank attack with soup

>ladels & pot holders, while still makeing

>sure to season the roast they were cooking,

>and doing the dishes etc.

This is truly a complex issue.

That übersoldier stuff just appears to be übersoldier stuff because you have been conditioned to think that only the big ones had the stuff that made heroes and the little ones are peanuts and they mimic the big boys in their actions.

Above is a scenario you yourself envisaged (which did also take place IRL) and I explained how a Finnish force would deal with a real tactical situation. And it was very different from the other armies responces, if you take into account the different doctrines that were prevailing at the time. Big armies with sufficent resources had their solutions based on what they had at hand and what were the most likely terrain types they would deploy them. Our army had to take into account the meager resources and how to utilize them in the prevailing terrain.

The Finnish troops did panic under extreme pressure with the best of them, they did get also killed and maimed with the best of them. But if you check out the figures of the Finns who surrendered you can see ours was not an army which surrendered unless the situation was hopeless and there was no way to get back to friendly lines. Escaping to fight another day was an option. Surrender only the last option. I think that among things that held the Finnish units together even when sustaining heavy casualties was devotion to your comrades and shame. Heavy casualties did not demoralize them, it gave them resolve. Shame would make them want to redeem themselves if they broke.

>When It's brought up 'ya but Finland

>lost'it gets turned around to, no Finland

>didn't, the Soviet's beggged for peace, or

>blameing the Germans, or Finland accepted

>the Soviet surrender rather then beat up

>any more poor Russians. Which begs the

>question why surrender then why not kick

>the Soviet's back to the Russia & restore

>the borders.

You assume our army was an army of aggression and that our politicians had no control over it. Our army's sole purpose was to buy time for the politicians and diplomats to do their jobs and bring about peace. And yes, we lost both wars. Butthe political and diplomatic outcome is more controversial than the simple win/lose options allow for. And it was not even a hands down military victory for the Soviets in any way. Even if they (along with the Germans) would like to have you believe. Which other army that lost in WWII was demobilized and did not surrender to the enemy while the country remained unoccupied ? Can't think of any but the Finnish army.

>As to Glantz I said this before why not

>contact him, enlighten him, to his errors,

>his old E-mail adress IIRC used to be

>Rzhev@ aol.com. he also used to frequent

>Val's site forums as well.

I have not seem him around there for a long time.

As for emailing him: I want to be sure the most blatant errors have been rectified in subsequent editions before I mail him. I think the errors were explained away in Val's forum with the remark that the book is about Soviet archives, not Finnish archives anyway.

But I trust you will spread the word about the errors whenever the book comes up in conversation.

[Naja]

tero, I would like to know more about the Finnish army. Many years of reading about WWII has taught me to take most accounts with a grain of salt (I must admit now reading mostly German accounts.) Unlike the most vocal here I prefer the human element of WWII and prefer the human element of the moment to the unit # and div x was 'here or there' which reminds me of a person memorising some boring baseball stat as opposed to the feel of an individual caught in a life and death struggle. If you could point me in the direction on the Finnish soldiers version of the war I would appreciate it.

[Grisha]

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

Carlos Hathcock was on a hill at Duc Pho when he made a 2500 yard kill.He shot a member of the viet cong with a 50 caliber machine gun. the heavy bullet allows for accuracy well beyond 2000 yards. And the cyclic rate is also slow enough for single shots to be fired. He pioneered the use of this weapon as a sniper platform.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they were using .50 MGs as sniper weapons in Korea. Even put a scope on it.