Captured KV Tanks

Tero · January 31, 2002

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.

Iron Chef Sakai · January 31, 2002

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
<blockquote>quote:<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.

Iron Chef Sakai · January 31, 2002

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
<blockquote>quote:<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.

Mattias · January 31, 2002

Steve has given the answer in another thread Iron. No horses, none.

I'd be surprised if the Germans did not get to use captured Soviet 76.2 mm field pieces, as well as SP guns, considering they actually started producing ammunition of their own for it.

The 45mm I don't know about it does not appear to have won the heart of the Germans the way the 76.2 gun or 120mm mortar did. The 57mm AT was used throughout the war though (according to Spielberger).

Oh, and you were probably misunderstood because you were referring to a post about Soviet captured trucks, in a thread about Soviet capture equipment, when asking about a Soviet gun, and a French/Czech one in a calibre that just ask to be confused with the well known Soviet 45mm and Soviet 57 mm calibres

M.

Mattias · January 31, 2002

Steve has given the answer in another thread Iron. No horses, none.

I'd be surprised if the Germans did not get to use captured Soviet 76.2 mm field pieces, as well as SP guns, considering they actually started producing ammunition of their own for it.

The 45mm I don't know about it does not appear to have won the heart of the Germans the way the 76.2 gun or 120mm mortar did. The 57mm AT was used throughout the war though (according to Spielberger).

Oh, and you were probably misunderstood because you were referring to a post about Soviet captured trucks, in a thread about Soviet capture equipment, when asking about a Soviet gun, and a French/Czech one in a calibre that just ask to be confused with the well known Soviet 45mm and Soviet 57 mm calibres

M.

Iron Chef Sakai · January 31, 2002

Ok will there be trains in the game? Or while we're at it Soviet and German armored trains. Also, are cars going to be modeled? If scout cars and jeeps are modeled, it would be easy to model destroyable cars in the game.

Iron Chef Sakai · January 31, 2002

Ok will there be trains in the game? Or while we're at it Soviet and German armored trains. Also, are cars going to be modeled? If scout cars and jeeps are modeled, it would be easy to model destroyable cars in the game.

patolino · January 31, 2002

Ok I'll jump the bandwagon. Will motorcycles be modeled? Especially those german ones with the MG-equipped sidecar?

Those should be fun to blow into bits

patolino · January 31, 2002

Ok I'll jump the bandwagon. Will motorcycles be modeled? Especially those german ones with the MG-equipped sidecar?

Those should be fun to blow into bits

Battlefront.com · January 31, 2002

Tero,

OK, I agree with most of your points about my statements. Although, the "home depot" thing I still disagree with you to the extent that scrounging for parts is inherently more difficult to do vs. having stock parts (captured, bought, or self produced). The problem with big vehicles is that scrounging for parts was extrordinarily difficult to do in reality on any scale worth mentioning. Keeping one or two examples running was not too difficult if they were not "punished" (used hard) by their crews AND a large supply of extra vehicles were available for stealing parts off of. Having even a simple bearing break could render a tank useless until another one was secured. The more difficult it was to secure it, the more difficult it would be to keep that vehicle in service. That is where depots come in, with home depots being more capable than those in the field.

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).

We always try to do this, for all nations, to the best extent possible. As I have said earlier, you must remember that the issues relating to Finland also apply (perhpas more so) to Romania and Hungary, not to mention Germany to some extent.

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.

Inherently, that is true. However, as we have discussed in the past you can not think that the unique experiences in one spot in one set of conditions is automatically applicable in another. For you, your focus is Finland. For me, it is the entire war, but in particular the Eastern Front. Your input about Finland's part is very much valued, but if I did not keep it in perspective as it relates to things (which I might know more about than you even) then I am not doing my job as a researcher, historian, and game designer.

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.

And here it comes out again

You claim you are not biased, yet you have repeatedly announced that you basically dismiss anything "western" as inherently flawed. To this I, and many others, have said "BS". All sources, even Finnish ones, have to be looked at with a questioning eye. To dismiss any source, Western, Finnish, or Soviet, based on its origin is racist/nationalist/braindead.

You might have found that Western coverage of Finland to be flawed compared to domsetic sources, which might very well be true. But to apply your vehment, often stated disdain for Western research in general, even when it applies to things which have everything to do with their first hand experiences, seriously compromises your ability to be taken seriously in regards to historical research, perspective, and opinion. You don't even bother to say why you don't agree with it, which would at least get you some respect, but instead dismiss it out of hand. Not good.

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.

Uhmmm... where did you dig this crap out from? The SMG was not a flawed concept, but it had its limitations like everything else. And the fact that no nation uses SMGs for its frontline main smallarm, in my mind, underscores this to the extreme. If SMGs were the best weapon in the world to use, forces would be armed with Uzis and MP5s. They are not, and there are reasons for that. However, they are also not without their benefits, which is why small "elite" units still use SMGs as their primary weapon (at least for some situations, like urban warfare).

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.

HAHA!!! This is so ludicrous it is making me really blurt out laughing here

Tero, please do a Search on this Forum on SMGs and see how much abuse we have taken (not just criticism, but outright abuse) for the way we have simulated SMGs in favor of the Germans and to the detriment of the Allies. Also check to see how many people feel that CMBO unrealistically rewards rushing tactics and unrealistically penalizes walking fire.

You are just so way off base here I don't know what else to say.

Steve

[ January 31, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

Battlefront.com · January 31, 2002

Tero,

OK, I agree with most of your points about my statements. Although, the "home depot" thing I still disagree with you to the extent that scrounging for parts is inherently more difficult to do vs. having stock parts (captured, bought, or self produced). The problem with big vehicles is that scrounging for parts was extrordinarily difficult to do in reality on any scale worth mentioning. Keeping one or two examples running was not too difficult if they were not "punished" (used hard) by their crews AND a large supply of extra vehicles were available for stealing parts off of. Having even a simple bearing break could render a tank useless until another one was secured. The more difficult it was to secure it, the more difficult it would be to keep that vehicle in service. That is where depots come in, with home depots being more capable than those in the field.

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).

We always try to do this, for all nations, to the best extent possible. As I have said earlier, you must remember that the issues relating to Finland also apply (perhpas more so) to Romania and Hungary, not to mention Germany to some extent.

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.

Inherently, that is true. However, as we have discussed in the past you can not think that the unique experiences in one spot in one set of conditions is automatically applicable in another. For you, your focus is Finland. For me, it is the entire war, but in particular the Eastern Front. Your input about Finland's part is very much valued, but if I did not keep it in perspective as it relates to things (which I might know more about than you even) then I am not doing my job as a researcher, historian, and game designer.

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.

And here it comes out again

You claim you are not biased, yet you have repeatedly announced that you basically dismiss anything "western" as inherently flawed. To this I, and many others, have said "BS". All sources, even Finnish ones, have to be looked at with a questioning eye. To dismiss any source, Western, Finnish, or Soviet, based on its origin is racist/nationalist/braindead.

You might have found that Western coverage of Finland to be flawed compared to domsetic sources, which might very well be true. But to apply your vehment, often stated disdain for Western research in general, even when it applies to things which have everything to do with their first hand experiences, seriously compromises your ability to be taken seriously in regards to historical research, perspective, and opinion. You don't even bother to say why you don't agree with it, which would at least get you some respect, but instead dismiss it out of hand. Not good.

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.

Uhmmm... where did you dig this crap out from? The SMG was not a flawed concept, but it had its limitations like everything else. And the fact that no nation uses SMGs for its frontline main smallarm, in my mind, underscores this to the extreme. If SMGs were the best weapon in the world to use, forces would be armed with Uzis and MP5s. They are not, and there are reasons for that. However, they are also not without their benefits, which is why small "elite" units still use SMGs as their primary weapon (at least for some situations, like urban warfare).

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.

HAHA!!! This is so ludicrous it is making me really blurt out laughing here

Tero, please do a Search on this Forum on SMGs and see how much abuse we have taken (not just criticism, but outright abuse) for the way we have simulated SMGs in favor of the Germans and to the detriment of the Allies. Also check to see how many people feel that CMBO unrealistically rewards rushing tactics and unrealistically penalizes walking fire.

You are just so way off base here I don't know what else to say.

Steve

[ January 31, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

MikeyD · January 31, 2002

One aspect of using captured equipment that hasn't been discussed is attrittion. Russia and the U.S. produced so many tanks because they were continually being fed through a meat-grinder. If you get hold of a piece of captured equipment that's only expected to run for another hundred miles that may be twenty miles more than it's natural life expectancy!

There are stories of Soviet Shermans being run til their rubber tracks were scraped bare, but there are as many stores of Stalingrad T34s being run straight out the factory and into Armageddon the same day! In the latter case long-term maintainability may not be a big issue.

And the stories about Shermans in '45 doubling their front armor by cutting the bow off of other destroyed Shermans implies that the 'doner' shermans were most probablye shiney new one-piece bow Shermans with low odometer numbers. And let's not forget a lot of this weld-on armor sealed off the bow transmission cover -- perhaps because it was assumed the tanks would probably not survive til its next oil change anyway!

So my point is captured KV tanks and reconstructed PzIII/SU76i's were probably expected to last as long as they lasted, just long enough to plug the hole in the dike til more equipment came.

---

As to the BergPanther with PzIV turret, I believe the thick 653rd book states it was a one-off by the local units on a working early Berg (no winch), the gun worked but could be moved in azimuth only by the driver pivoting the vehicle on the tracks (which they seem to have got pretty good at!). I guess the higher-ups got pissed about the unauthorized conversion and had the turret removed... if memory serves.

MikeyD · January 31, 2002

One aspect of using captured equipment that hasn't been discussed is attrittion. Russia and the U.S. produced so many tanks because they were continually being fed through a meat-grinder. If you get hold of a piece of captured equipment that's only expected to run for another hundred miles that may be twenty miles more than it's natural life expectancy!

There are stories of Soviet Shermans being run til their rubber tracks were scraped bare, but there are as many stores of Stalingrad T34s being run straight out the factory and into Armageddon the same day! In the latter case long-term maintainability may not be a big issue.

And the stories about Shermans in '45 doubling their front armor by cutting the bow off of other destroyed Shermans implies that the 'doner' shermans were most probablye shiney new one-piece bow Shermans with low odometer numbers. And let's not forget a lot of this weld-on armor sealed off the bow transmission cover -- perhaps because it was assumed the tanks would probably not survive til its next oil change anyway!

So my point is captured KV tanks and reconstructed PzIII/SU76i's were probably expected to last as long as they lasted, just long enough to plug the hole in the dike til more equipment came.

---

As to the BergPanther with PzIV turret, I believe the thick 653rd book states it was a one-off by the local units on a working early Berg (no winch), the gun worked but could be moved in azimuth only by the driver pivoting the vehicle on the tracks (which they seem to have got pretty good at!). I guess the higher-ups got pissed about the unauthorized conversion and had the turret removed... if memory serves.

Iron Chef Sakai · February 1, 2002

Will the Matilda II be making an apearence? The U.S was not the only country giving aid to the USSR. They also sent them Hurricanes as well.

Iron Chef Sakai · February 1, 2002

Will the Matilda II be making an apearence? The U.S was not the only country giving aid to the USSR. They also sent them Hurricanes as well.

Battlefront.com · February 1, 2002

BTW,

I found out that I was mistaken about changes to Split Squads. Hehe... that's what happens when the change was made after almost no debate in August Not to mention that I hardly ever played with Split Squads in CMBO so haven't noticed the difference myself.

As I said, in regards to concentration of automatic small arms, this is a moot point for most squads, most of the time. Generally this will yield one Squad with a SMG and the other with the LMG. However, the real bonus of the change is that PFs and rifle grenades are generally "given" to the non LMG half of the squad. Now you don't have to see that one PF given to the LMG half squad while the non-LMG one gets nothing (or each get one, etc.). Grenades, I believe, are also favored for the non-LMG half squad (we do track handgrenades in CMBB).

The new split squad behavior will not make much of a difference for most squad types for much of the war. But towards the end of the war this will likely be a good thing to play around with. However, keep in mind that we have dedicated tank hunter teams in place so each side (in theory) already has dedicated assets designed to take out tanks at close quarters.

As for British equipment for the Soviets... of course they will get things like Matildas, Churchills, and (IIRC) Valintines. Can't recall any others off the top of my head, but I think I did forget one or two.

Steve

Battlefront.com · February 1, 2002

BTW,

I found out that I was mistaken about changes to Split Squads. Hehe... that's what happens when the change was made after almost no debate in August Not to mention that I hardly ever played with Split Squads in CMBO so haven't noticed the difference myself.

As I said, in regards to concentration of automatic small arms, this is a moot point for most squads, most of the time. Generally this will yield one Squad with a SMG and the other with the LMG. However, the real bonus of the change is that PFs and rifle grenades are generally "given" to the non LMG half of the squad. Now you don't have to see that one PF given to the LMG half squad while the non-LMG one gets nothing (or each get one, etc.). Grenades, I believe, are also favored for the non-LMG half squad (we do track handgrenades in CMBB).

The new split squad behavior will not make much of a difference for most squad types for much of the war. But towards the end of the war this will likely be a good thing to play around with. However, keep in mind that we have dedicated tank hunter teams in place so each side (in theory) already has dedicated assets designed to take out tanks at close quarters.

As for British equipment for the Soviets... of course they will get things like Matildas, Churchills, and (IIRC) Valintines. Can't recall any others off the top of my head, but I think I did forget one or two.

Steve

Francesco · February 1, 2002

About PzKmpf KW-2 754 ®... I'm doing a model of this in 1/35 scale.... just a dozen of them were created (converted) and their intent was to be used in operations against Malta as Z.B.V. 66 battle company. The invasion never took place and they were sent to Panzer Divion 6th and fought in the southern front during 1942...

Noone survived to 1943 as we know actually...

Byez!

Francesco

Francesco · February 1, 2002

About PzKmpf KW-2 754 ®... I'm doing a model of this in 1/35 scale.... just a dozen of them were created (converted) and their intent was to be used in operations against Malta as Z.B.V. 66 battle company. The invasion never took place and they were sent to Panzer Divion 6th and fought in the southern front during 1942...

Noone survived to 1943 as we know actually...

Byez!

Francesco

Brian · February 1, 2002

Originally posted by Francesco:
About PzKmpf KW-2 754 ®... I'm doing a model of this in 1/35 scale.... just a dozen of them were created (converted) and their intent was to be used in operations against Malta as Z.B.V. 66 battle company. The invasion never took place and they were sent to Panzer Divion 6th and fought in the southern front during 1942...
Noone survived to 1943 as we know actually...
Byez!
Francesco

An interesting thought. My question is how were they going to get them there. The Germans weren't exactly well equipped with LCT's and the KVI is too heavy for a glider/transport aircraft to carry.

I was always under the impression they intended to use 35(t) or 38(t)s.

Brian · February 1, 2002

Originally posted by Francesco:
About PzKmpf KW-2 754 ®... I'm doing a model of this in 1/35 scale.... just a dozen of them were created (converted) and their intent was to be used in operations against Malta as Z.B.V. 66 battle company. The invasion never took place and they were sent to Panzer Divion 6th and fought in the southern front during 1942...
Noone survived to 1943 as we know actually...
Byez!
Francesco

An interesting thought. My question is how were they going to get them there. The Germans weren't exactly well equipped with LCT's and the KVI is too heavy for a glider/transport aircraft to carry.

I was always under the impression they intended to use 35(t) or 38(t)s.

Tero · February 3, 2002

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

OK, I agree with most of your points about my statements.

I'll be damned.

Although, the "home depot" thing I still disagree with you to the extent that scrounging for parts is inherently more difficult to do vs. having stock parts (captured, bought, or self produced).

Concur in principle. I think it is a question of availability and where the stocks are. You can get your logistics system overloaded with the sheer number of different models which you have to supply with spare parts from across the continent. Or get the logistic system interdicted and disrupted along various points of the flow to the extent there is a need to make the critical decision what has to be transported first.

The problem with big vehicles is that scrounging for parts was extrordinarily difficult to do in reality on any scale worth mentioning.

Do you consider cannibalizing of domestic vehicles in forward repair facilities to be a different matter alltogether ? I do not. The only major difference is the repair people have to go up to the front line to cannibalize KO's enemy vehicles. Bringing back just the scavenged parts you really need is far more easier than transporting the entire vehicle back to the facility.

Having even a simple bearing break could render a tank useless until another one was secured. The more difficult it was to secure it, the more difficult it would be to keep that vehicle in service. That is where depots come in, with home depots being more capable than those in the field.

Concur. Only, the fighting unit is in the field and not back home next to the stock of spares. Or if it is then something has gone terribly wrong. Or right.

We always try to do this, for all nations, to the best extent possible. As I have said earlier, you must remember that the issues relating to Finland also apply (perhpas more so) to Romania and Hungary, not to mention Germany to some extent.

Agreed. But the basic burden the others had (the sheer diversity of models and calibers) did not take place in the Finnish Army in a manner that was perceived to be restrictive or prohibitive. It was not allowed to be or become restrictive or prohibitive. Another is the fact that nothing that was peceived to be of value was discarded until it was hopelessly out of date or a better model was aqcuired (received as a gift, purchased or captured) in sufficient numbers and sufficient level of ammo.

Incidentaly, I'm reading the history of the Finnish 1st Div and there are remarks how a unit in retreat during the summer of 1944 was cut off and basically up **** creek and what enabled it to go on fighting and eventualy saved it was the fact they secured ammo from a Red Army supply column.

Inherently, that is true. However, as we have discussed in the past you can not think that the unique experiences in one spot in one set of conditions is automatically applicable in another.

What makes the Finnish experiences unique ? You are willing to entertain examples from the Western Allies, the Germans and the Red Army but when an example from the Finnish sphere of experience is introduced you almost invariably claim it is not relevant. Why ?

For you, your focus is Finland. For me, it is the entire war, but in particular the Eastern Front. Your input about Finland's part is very much valued, but if I did not keep it in perspective as it relates to things (which I might know more about than you even) then I am not doing my job as a researcher, historian, and game designer.

I abhor the all-encompassing "all things being equal" which gets used frequently on this forum. This is because all things are not equal. You look at the big picture and you try to define things according to certain criteria. You try to make everything fit into that one picture as it were. And that picture and scope seems to be combined arms operations. Our army (being a reservist army) had trained before the war to act without much help from armour and artillery. Our artillery was in par with the best of them when it came to procedure and doctrine, only during Winter War it lacked the means to deliver the best it could have delivered. Later our army could muster both a decent armoured force and a sufficiently lavish artillery support. Yet the prewar training, tactics and doctrine of the infantry remained basically the same. The Germans noted most of the Finnish troops knew nothing about armour-infantry co-operation. And this was true. But that was not much of a handicap when most of the time there was no armoured support. What hurt more was the lack of effective infantry AT assets, both during Winter War and in the summer of 1944. During Winter War the situation remained critical but during the summer of 1944 the situation improved dramatically when the man portable, short range stand off AT weapons became available.

And here it comes out again You claim you are not biased, yet you have repeatedly announced that you basically dismiss anything "western" as inherently flawed. To this I, and many others, have said "BS". All sources, even Finnish ones, have to be looked at with a questioning eye. To dismiss any source, Western, Finnish, or Soviet, based on its origin is racist/nationalist/braindead.

Nononononono. I said I do not show "proper" respect, I do not dismiss it as inherently flawed. There is a difference.

You might have found that Western coverage of Finland to be flawed compared to domsetic sources, which might very well be true. But to apply your vehment, often stated disdain for Western research in general, even when it applies to things which have everything to do with their first hand experiences, seriously compromises your ability to be taken seriously in regards to historical research, perspective, and opinion. You don't even bother to say why you don't agree with it, which would at least get you some respect, but instead dismiss it out of hand. Not good.

As I said I am currently reading the history of the 1st Division of the Finnish Army. In the back there is a list of the divisions KIA, DOW and MIA listed by parent unit, date of death (actual or court order), giving rank, name and place of birth from 1941 to 1945. The only place I have seen a similar list in an Anglo-American history is a book on the US airforces during the Vietnam war where they listed all the US MIA.

I have studied some history, including methodology and source critique. My disdain as you call it is based on scholarly criteria, not on the origin. Having been acclimatized to the level of accuracy as presented by the books mentioned above I find it really difficult to accept statements inferring (for example) Allied losses are indetermineable for such and such period of time or for this particular operation. This seems to have been because all the histories use the same sources and uphold the party line as established during and right after the war. The technical data is on the money, no question about it.

Edited:

But if in a popular history book like the Steel Inferno the author states in p.215 (paperback edition) on the heavy bomber attacks during Goowood "The results of these attacs have described many times before and there is no need to repeat them in detail" and in p. 230 "The strategic results, failures, successes and implications of this operation have been discussed many times. This author will confine himself to four basic statements." Remarks like this make the hair in the back of my neck curl on end. Not because the author is Anglo-American, but because these sentences assume certain things as givens from the reader. They also imply that there are still aspects that are too delicate to be handled impartially. These two sentences quite ruined the book for me despite its excellent attention to detail elsewhere.

Uhmmm... where did you dig this crap out from? The SMG was not a flawed concept, but it had its limitations like everything else. And the fact that no nation uses SMGs for its frontline main smallarm, in my mind, underscores this to the extreme. If SMGs were the best weapon in the world to use, forces would be armed with Uzis and MP5s. They are not, and there are reasons for that. However, they are also not without their benefits, which is why small "elite" units still use SMGs as their primary weapon (at least for some situations, like urban warfare).

Concur. However, how many of the assault rifles in service today do NOT have a possibility to select fullauto ?

You decided to limit the ammo for the SMG but you apparently did not increase the FP rating as a compensation. Why ?

HAHA!!! This is so ludicrous it is making me really blurt out laughing here Tero, please do a Search on this Forum on SMGs and see how much abuse we have taken (not just criticism, but outright abuse) for the way we have simulated SMGs in favor of the Germans and to the detriment of the Allies. Also check to see how many people feel that CMBO unrealistically rewards rushing tactics and unrealistically penalizes walking fire.

So why do the running units not fire at all ?

[ February 03, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Tero · February 3, 2002