Captured KV Tanks

[Graaf Spee]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

Steve

Wasn't there a change in how the weapons and special ammo was going to be distributed between the two halfsquads? All smgs and special stuff to one, and the other got the longrange firepower.

/Kristian

edited because quoting is sooo hard

[ 01-29-2002, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Graaf Spee ]

[Graaf Spee]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

Steve

Wasn't there a change in how the weapons and special ammo was going to be distributed between the two halfsquads? All smgs and special stuff to one, and the other got the longrange firepower.

/Kristian

edited because quoting is sooo hard

[ 01-29-2002, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Graaf Spee ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning!

well the Romanians did use the same belted 7.92 Mauser ammo.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning!

well the Romanians did use the same belted 7.92 Mauser ammo.

[Brian]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Graaf Spee... well, to be honest... to the best of my knowledge this is the first I have heard about it And anyway, since most Squads only have one or two SMGs, it isn't a big deal anyway.

Hofbauer,

Funny stuff about the MG ammo However...

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

Actually, the Chief was unknownling "technically" correct because he said "Axis" and not "German" troops. This makes him technically correct because the Hungarians used a Belgian 47mm gun (Conon de 47 antichars SA-FRC) and the Romaians and Italians the Böhler you mentioned The Germans used some they captured/aquired off the Italians, but none on the Eastern Front I think. They also apparently used the French Canon de 47 antichar SA mle 1937 and 1939 models for some of the static divisions in the West. Then ther was the Czech Skoda gun which Brian mentioned, being mounted on PzKw1 chasis as the first Panzerjäger put into service.

Brian, are you sure about the Soviet 47mm? I don't know of a single Soviet 47mm gun in service, and so I did a quick check and didn't turn up anything. Their 45mm gun, which was basically a larger copy of the Pak36, was used in HUGE numbers by the Soviets and Axis troops as well in both AT and IG roles. Were you thinking about the Soviet 57mm ZiS-2 M41 and M43 AT Guns?

Oh, and yes... we will be seeing all the guns I just mentioned in CMBB

Steve

[ January 29, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

Graaf Spee... well, to be honest... to the best of my knowledge this is the first I have heard about it And anyway, since most Squads only have one or two SMGs, it isn't a big deal anyway.

Hofbauer,

Funny stuff about the MG ammo However...

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

Actually, the Chief was unknownling "technically" correct because he said "Axis" and not "German" troops. This makes him technically correct because the Hungarians used a Belgian 47mm gun (Conon de 47 antichars SA-FRC) and the Romaians and Italians the Böhler you mentioned The Germans used some they captured/aquired off the Italians, but none on the Eastern Front I think. They also apparently used the French Canon de 47 antichar SA mle 1937 and 1939 models for some of the static divisions in the West. Then ther was the Czech Skoda gun which Brian mentioned, being mounted on PzKw1 chasis as the first Panzerjäger put into service.

Brian, are you sure about the Soviet 47mm? I don't know of a single Soviet 47mm gun in service, and so I did a quick check and didn't turn up anything. Their 45mm gun, which was basically a larger copy of the Pak36, was used in HUGE numbers by the Soviets and Axis troops as well in both AT and IG roles. Were you thinking about the Soviet 57mm ZiS-2 M41 and M43 AT Guns?

Oh, and yes... we will be seeing all the guns I just mentioned in CMBB

Steve

[ January 29, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns?

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

</font>

[M Hofbauer]

I should have been more specific...I meant the ermans would be hard pressed to come by russian 47mm AT guns because the only 47mm AT guns were some weird ones on the axis side, notably the ones I mentioned from the back of my head, not the soviets.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brian, are you sure about the Soviet 47mm? I don't know of a single Soviet 47mm gun in service, and so I did a quick check and didn't turn up anything.

Neither do I. The russian 45mm AT gun is called 45mm and it is a true 45 mm caliber.

[M Hofbauer]

I should have been more specific...I meant the ermans would be hard pressed to come by russian 47mm AT guns because the only 47mm AT guns were some weird ones on the axis side, notably the ones I mentioned from the back of my head, not the soviets.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brian, are you sure about the Soviet 47mm? I don't know of a single Soviet 47mm gun in service, and so I did a quick check and didn't turn up anything.

Neither do I. The russian 45mm AT gun is called 45mm and it is a true 45 mm caliber.

[Brian]

Humble apologies. I got it wrong. Yes, the Soviet gun was 45, not 47mm in calibre.

[extracts thumb from bum, puts memory back in gear and stops thinking about GIS and unix problems for a few seconds]

Apart from that, yes, there were several other 47mm guns, though.

[Brian]

Humble apologies. I got it wrong. Yes, the Soviet gun was 45, not 47mm in calibre.

[extracts thumb from bum, puts memory back in gear and stops thinking about GIS and unix problems for a few seconds]

Apart from that, yes, there were several other 47mm guns, though.

[Tero]

Originally posted by patolino:

Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)?

Beats me.

Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war?

Where would they have been bought ? We were paying war reparations until 1952, remember ?

NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing

Concur. I was actually surprised to see the 45mm AT and the 88 AA as training guns when I served in 1985-86.

[Tero]

Originally posted by patolino:

Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)?

Beats me.

Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war?

Where would they have been bought ? We were paying war reparations until 1952, remember ?

NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing

Concur. I was actually surprised to see the 45mm AT and the 88 AA as training guns when I served in 1985-86.

[Tero]

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs.

I hope you realize the fact that there is a fundamental difference between countries like USA and Finland. USA produced its own vehicles, by the thousand. USA could standardize all necessary parts and subassemblies, it could build up stocks of spare parts etc. Finland on the other had could not afford such affluence. The only thing going for our army in this respect was the fact we were using the same weapons and ammunition our most likely enemy was using. (This was BTW continued when the RK-62 was designed after the AK-47, not the FN-FAL or M14/16.) That enabled our troops to replace broken, malfunctioning or downright inferior weapons with captured ones without any difficulties arising from incompatible ammunition or spare parts. After Winter War the number of captured rifles that reached the depots was nearly 40 000. And that figure is considered to be too low as many were taken up by troops on the spot. Automatics were taken up on the spot as well.

It is quite curious and unique that while our army lost the Winter War it had gained enough captured materiel to equip its infantry with a sufficient number of AT guns, automatics and other small arms in good condition and its armoured force with an adequate number of decent AFV's and its artillery with sufficient numbers of field guns. And all the necessary ammo to boot. When war broke out again in 1941 our army was in a better shape than it had been in 1939. And that was more due to the captured materiel than it was due to help received during and after the Winter War or due to purchases from Germany.

After the war things reverted to the pre-war status, ie. low defence budgets. The airforce and the armoured force were hit the hardest by this because their equipment was the most vulnerable to wear and tear.

My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank.

True. But there is a correlation between the numbers of them. If you have captured a single specimen of each of them ALL will break down eventualy at the end of the maintenance cycle and for the lack of spares ALL have to be discarded.

The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment.

If you want to compare to the Germans I think a more suitable parallel is the Afrika Korps inventory and use of captured vehicles. The situation of the Afrika Korps was not unlike the Finnish situation, the only real difference was the fact they had some decent domestic equipment to start out with. They had a fairly uniform base of vehicles initially. Later on they managed to maintain and use any and all models of captured AFV's, HT's and soft skinned vehicles they could lay their hands on and get fixed.

In the case of the EF and use of captured enemy armour: how many armoured unit (using the light armour) had the FAMO or SdKfz-7 heavy tractors that were required to salavage such heavy pieces of equipment ? When they did have them how often could they be spared to tow enemy armour when they had their own heavy stuff break down so often ?

OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service.

Get off your high horse. Just because the US Army had restrictive rules about captured stuff you should remember those rules did not apply to everyone.

You are also forgetting we did capture some T-28's during Winter War and they were used later on. The only reason the Soviets were able to recover the SMK that got stopped behind the Finnish lines During Winter War was because our army did not have any means in place to tow the sucker away. Later the KV's and other mediums/heavies could be towed away. And during the summer of 1944, during the retreat, our army managed to capture and use further 2 T-34/76's and 9 T-34/85's along with two ISU-152's (one transported to the rear, one lost four days later to the enemy).

If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this.

It was not easy. But it was done.

If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant.

Please name one other country that did have close to 95% of its armoured force made out of captured vehicles and relied almost 100% on captured materiel for spare parts and ammunition (in 1941). Please name one other country that had almost 100% compatibility (9mm Suomi SMG and 20mm AT rifle being the most notable exceptions) with the enemy ordnance when it came to small arms and its ammunition in front line units.

There is nothing über about this, the fact is when you are trying to make sweeping statements about the use of captured equipment and how it was basically a burden. Well, excuse me if I have the audacity to point out that there is an exception to the rule. Yes, it was not easy to maintain the captured armour. But no, it was not a burden to be able to use captured small arms and ammo.

During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had.

You yourself maintain how hard it is to keep them running even under the easiest of conditions during peace time. Thus your argumentation is flawed in this case.

If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison.

And I propose you are ruling it out because it kinda makes sense and that throws a monkey wrench in your reasoning.

And from photographic evidence alone I would hazard an opinion that the Germans did use captured equipment quite extensively, especially small arms. They also had quite a few heavy items named ® denoting captured Russischen origin. Just like they had a lot of items with all kinds of indications of foreign origin, not just Russian.

The main issue is ammo supplies and spare parts. The others had to rely on captured stocks while we Finns could use either our own stock or captured stock, whatever was most convenient under the circumstances. That was a bonus we got for having been under the rule of the Tsars and having Russian troops stationed here.

Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised

For a moment there I though we almost agreed at least on some things there.

Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12.

By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units.

Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have.

Which is, apart from more FP, what ?

Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces.

I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect.

True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct.

If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ?

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt not too long ago.

[Tero]

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs.

I hope you realize the fact that there is a fundamental difference between countries like USA and Finland. USA produced its own vehicles, by the thousand. USA could standardize all necessary parts and subassemblies, it could build up stocks of spare parts etc. Finland on the other had could not afford such affluence. The only thing going for our army in this respect was the fact we were using the same weapons and ammunition our most likely enemy was using. (This was BTW continued when the RK-62 was designed after the AK-47, not the FN-FAL or M14/16.) That enabled our troops to replace broken, malfunctioning or downright inferior weapons with captured ones without any difficulties arising from incompatible ammunition or spare parts. After Winter War the number of captured rifles that reached the depots was nearly 40 000. And that figure is considered to be too low as many were taken up by troops on the spot. Automatics were taken up on the spot as well.

It is quite curious and unique that while our army lost the Winter War it had gained enough captured materiel to equip its infantry with a sufficient number of AT guns, automatics and other small arms in good condition and its armoured force with an adequate number of decent AFV's and its artillery with sufficient numbers of field guns. And all the necessary ammo to boot. When war broke out again in 1941 our army was in a better shape than it had been in 1939. And that was more due to the captured materiel than it was due to help received during and after the Winter War or due to purchases from Germany.

After the war things reverted to the pre-war status, ie. low defence budgets. The airforce and the armoured force were hit the hardest by this because their equipment was the most vulnerable to wear and tear.

My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank.

True. But there is a correlation between the numbers of them. If you have captured a single specimen of each of them ALL will break down eventualy at the end of the maintenance cycle and for the lack of spares ALL have to be discarded.

The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment.

If you want to compare to the Germans I think a more suitable parallel is the Afrika Korps inventory and use of captured vehicles. The situation of the Afrika Korps was not unlike the Finnish situation, the only real difference was the fact they had some decent domestic equipment to start out with. They had a fairly uniform base of vehicles initially. Later on they managed to maintain and use any and all models of captured AFV's, HT's and soft skinned vehicles they could lay their hands on and get fixed.

In the case of the EF and use of captured enemy armour: how many armoured unit (using the light armour) had the FAMO or SdKfz-7 heavy tractors that were required to salavage such heavy pieces of equipment ? When they did have them how often could they be spared to tow enemy armour when they had their own heavy stuff break down so often ?

OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service.

Get off your high horse. Just because the US Army had restrictive rules about captured stuff you should remember those rules did not apply to everyone.

You are also forgetting we did capture some T-28's during Winter War and they were used later on. The only reason the Soviets were able to recover the SMK that got stopped behind the Finnish lines During Winter War was because our army did not have any means in place to tow the sucker away. Later the KV's and other mediums/heavies could be towed away. And during the summer of 1944, during the retreat, our army managed to capture and use further 2 T-34/76's and 9 T-34/85's along with two ISU-152's (one transported to the rear, one lost four days later to the enemy).

If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this.

It was not easy. But it was done.

If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant.

Please name one other country that did have close to 95% of its armoured force made out of captured vehicles and relied almost 100% on captured materiel for spare parts and ammunition (in 1941). Please name one other country that had almost 100% compatibility (9mm Suomi SMG and 20mm AT rifle being the most notable exceptions) with the enemy ordnance when it came to small arms and its ammunition in front line units.

There is nothing über about this, the fact is when you are trying to make sweeping statements about the use of captured equipment and how it was basically a burden. Well, excuse me if I have the audacity to point out that there is an exception to the rule. Yes, it was not easy to maintain the captured armour. But no, it was not a burden to be able to use captured small arms and ammo.

During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had.

You yourself maintain how hard it is to keep them running even under the easiest of conditions during peace time. Thus your argumentation is flawed in this case.

If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison.

And I propose you are ruling it out because it kinda makes sense and that throws a monkey wrench in your reasoning.

And from photographic evidence alone I would hazard an opinion that the Germans did use captured equipment quite extensively, especially small arms. They also had quite a few heavy items named ® denoting captured Russischen origin. Just like they had a lot of items with all kinds of indications of foreign origin, not just Russian.

The main issue is ammo supplies and spare parts. The others had to rely on captured stocks while we Finns could use either our own stock or captured stock, whatever was most convenient under the circumstances. That was a bonus we got for having been under the rule of the Tsars and having Russian troops stationed here.

Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised

For a moment there I though we almost agreed at least on some things there.

Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12.

By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units.

Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have.

Which is, apart from more FP, what ?

Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces.

I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect.

True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct.

If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ?

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt not too long ago.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

As has often been the case... I (or someone else) goes 10 rounds of massive nitpicking and wind up being totally baffled by what you are trying to prove. So I will restate what our position is...

1. Use of captured equipment in CMBB will reflect historic levels by country.

2. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult than domestic equipment.

3. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult over time.

4. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult in relation to the complexity and reliability of the equipment in question.

5. Use of captured vehicles was inherently more difficult than other equipment, such as guns and small arms.

6. Use of captured equipment, particularly vehicles, was made easier to the degree that domestic industry catered to spare parts or substitute systems.

7. Use of captured equipment was made easier when the scale was smaller, more difficult when the scale was larger. Also strongly influenced by the available numbers of captured stocks.

8. Need for strongly influenced effort in terms of aquiring, fielding, and maintaining captured equipment. "Where there is a will, there is a way" as the saying goes.

9. The fluidity of the front, the distance from home depots, and general state of logistics made continued use of captured equipment inherently more difficult.

10. Use of captured equipment during peacetime can not be compared to use during war. Period.

So what do you think about this? Any disagreement of any significance worth noting?

Note that I did not mention anything about nationalities. I am NOT hung up on nationalism or sterotyping. I couldn't care less what country was or was not perceived as being good or not good at something. The only thing I care about are facts and reality. If the Finns had better success at keeping larger quantities of captured material on hand than other countries, then there is a reason for that. It isn't because they are better and the others worse.

Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions I get the distinct feeling (which you have directly reinforced) that you are biased either for Finland or against anything Western. And therefore all of these discussions disolve into some sort of perception battle. It is as tiring as it is pointless.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

As has often been the case... I (or someone else) goes 10 rounds of massive nitpicking and wind up being totally baffled by what you are trying to prove. So I will restate what our position is...

1. Use of captured equipment in CMBB will reflect historic levels by country.

2. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult than domestic equipment.

3. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult over time.

4. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult in relation to the complexity and reliability of the equipment in question.

5. Use of captured vehicles was inherently more difficult than other equipment, such as guns and small arms.

6. Use of captured equipment, particularly vehicles, was made easier to the degree that domestic industry catered to spare parts or substitute systems.

7. Use of captured equipment was made easier when the scale was smaller, more difficult when the scale was larger. Also strongly influenced by the available numbers of captured stocks.

8. Need for strongly influenced effort in terms of aquiring, fielding, and maintaining captured equipment. "Where there is a will, there is a way" as the saying goes.

9. The fluidity of the front, the distance from home depots, and general state of logistics made continued use of captured equipment inherently more difficult.

10. Use of captured equipment during peacetime can not be compared to use during war. Period.

So what do you think about this? Any disagreement of any significance worth noting?

Note that I did not mention anything about nationalities. I am NOT hung up on nationalism or sterotyping. I couldn't care less what country was or was not perceived as being good or not good at something. The only thing I care about are facts and reality. If the Finns had better success at keeping larger quantities of captured material on hand than other countries, then there is a reason for that. It isn't because they are better and the others worse.

Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions I get the distinct feeling (which you have directly reinforced) that you are biased either for Finland or against anything Western. And therefore all of these discussions disolve into some sort of perception battle. It is as tiring as it is pointless.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To answer game related questions which are NOT involved in some sort of anti-Western or Pro-Finland drivel...

By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units.

Foolish? Why? You think that 4 men alone, without their other buddies, who suffer 2 casualties are going to be better off than a group of 8 who lose 2? I think the studies of morale and combat effectiveness would strongly disagree with you.

Which is, apart from more FP, what ?

Staying power, which in CM is largely represented by Morale since the system can not force the player to do respect this through any other reasonable means.

I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect.

They are not treated equally. A Green squad is inherently less stable than an Elite one. Split each and they don't become the same. A Green one will now be horrible while the Elite one will probably still be better than Regular. Also keep in mind that Elite troops don't magically become imune to all negative psychological factors on the battlefield. They just, in theory, are affected by them less.

If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ?

As you well know, we do not simulate things to this degree. Each 1/2 of a Squad is treated the same in terms of ratings and leadership. So if you have a really good squad, and they split in two, each half is only as good as it started off being.

The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt

Could you please be more specific?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To answer game related questions which are NOT involved in some sort of anti-Western or Pro-Finland drivel...

By the same token I think it is foolish to think a group of 8 or 12 will have a better endurance in morale or that splitting up automatically affects the morale state of the sub units.

Foolish? Why? You think that 4 men alone, without their other buddies, who suffer 2 casualties are going to be better off than a group of 8 who lose 2? I think the studies of morale and combat effectiveness would strongly disagree with you.

Which is, apart from more FP, what ?

Staying power, which in CM is largely represented by Morale since the system can not force the player to do respect this through any other reasonable means.

I think it should depend on experience and not be a global factor. I can buy a green half squad being more unstable than a veteran one. But not both being treated equally in this respect.

They are not treated equally. A Green squad is inherently less stable than an Elite one. Split each and they don't become the same. A Green one will now be horrible while the Elite one will probably still be better than Regular. Also keep in mind that Elite troops don't magically become imune to all negative psychological factors on the battlefield. They just, in theory, are affected by them less.

If the half squad is totally separate there must be a sub unit commander. Who is it and what kind of ratings does he have ?

As you well know, we do not simulate things to this degree. Each 1/2 of a Squad is treated the same in terms of ratings and leadership. So if you have a really good squad, and they split in two, each half is only as good as it started off being.

The firebase section and the movement section as described by you or Madmatt

Could you please be more specific?

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

1. Use of captured equipment in CMBB will reflect historic levels by country.

I'll have take your word for it.

2. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult than domestic equipment.

Unless domestic equipment is close to or exactly 100% compatible with the captured equipment. For example the Maxim, the DT LMG, the LS LMG, the Mosin Nagant rifle and the Finnish copy of it all used the same caliber ammo.

Also, the T-26 was a carbon copy of the Vickers 6ton, which was already in the Finnish inventory in 1939.

3. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult over time.

See above.

4. Use of captured equipment was inherently more difficult in relation to the complexity and reliability of the equipment in question.

Concur.

5. Use of captured vehicles was inherently more difficult than other equipment, such as guns and small arms.

Concur.

6. Use of captured equipment, particularly vehicles, was made easier to the degree that domestic industry catered to spare parts or substitute systems.

That is inversly proportionate to the number of different models being used.

7. Use of captured equipment was made easier when the scale was smaller, more difficult when the scale was larger. Also strongly influenced by the available numbers of captured stocks.

Concur.

8. Need for strongly influenced effort in terms of aquiring, fielding, and maintaining captured equipment. "Where there is a will, there is a way" as the saying goes.

Concur.

9. The fluidity of the front, the distance from home depots, and general state of logistics made continued use of captured equipment inherently more difficult.

Why HOME depots only ? If you are using a piece of equipment made by nation A in a far away front against nation B that is true. But if you are using a piece of equipment made by nation B against itself why cycle all of them, including fully operational or those needing minor repair only to far off bases ? That is stupid.

10. Use of captured equipment during peacetime can not be compared to use during war.

Concur. With a caveat. Depends what your intentions are: trying to maintain a fig leaf to pose as a credible fighting capability or use them for training.

So what do you think about this? Any disagreement of any significance worth noting?

In the points noted.

Note that I did not mention anything about nationalities. I am NOT hung up on nationalism or sterotyping. I couldn't care less what country was or was not perceived as being good or not good at something. The only thing I care about are facts and reality. If the Finns had better success at keeping larger quantities of captured material on hand than other countries, then there is a reason for that. It isn't because they are better and the others worse.

I fully agree. But when you guys are modelling the use of captured equipment you should also take into account the finer nuances, like the fact the Finnish army rejected German small arms in large scale use. This was mainly because of the incompatible ammo caliber (and in the case of the MG34/42 their mechanical reliability compared to the DT).

Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions I get the distinct feeling (which you have directly reinforced) that you are biased either for Finland or against anything Western.

I try to be unbiased against any side. Just because I tend to use Finnish experiences as my yard stick should not make my points any less valid than the rest of the POV's.

And admitedly I do not show proper respect to the "correct" history writing of the mainstream Anglo-American tradition. If you deem that as being anti-Western then it is your problem.

In such cases as ROF and the use of SMG's the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that million flies.... er Russians could not have been all wrong when they managed what theyd did fielding SMG's as they managed to force the Germans to follow suit. Just because the Western Allies totally midjudged the use of SMG does not meant the SMG was fundamentaly flawed as a concept. This is why I think the US squad with its 10 M1's should not be all powerful. And CMBO does favour the US squad and its forte as is glaringly obvious when no firing is allowed on the run which in turn favours the walking fire tactics as opposed to the rush tactics.

And therefore all of these discussions disolve into some sort of perception battle. It is as tiring as it is pointless.

I do not think it is a battle. More like a skirmish.