Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[JR 8]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:

One day you´ll learn to read history and maybe then your arguments about war history are not so moronic in the first place, hopefully.

Im sorry, after commets like how the finns won over the Red Army twice,I dont take uber finns seriously anymore.</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

How was it faked/distorted?

Well, lets take a look at some parts of that From these results it is obvious that the Soviet guns were much superior to all (both L56 and L71) 88mm guns produced by Germany.

Given the fact that there was no option to take the german guns into production this is actually meaningless info.

Note also that the document states that both Soviet Guns can penetrate the Panthers frontal glacis at all combat ranges (Soviet gunsights at the time made hitting anything outside 1500m a lucky shot)

That's because they are firing tests of the guns, obviously the intent here is to determine the effectiveness of the guns rather than the whole tank.

Ok, lets look a bit closer at these results.

[,,]

This means that using high quality rounds, the Panther glacis was potentially vulnerable anywhere from 0 to about 1200m range (though certainly not out to 2500m range). Without the details of the test that resulted in the declaration of "reliable penetration to 2500m" is dubious at best.

The only way to reach the results the Soviets did at Kubinka is if you reduce the armor quality of the Panther. (Since it would be impossible to falsify the gun data "and get away with it")

How did they do it then?

They used a Panther with early face hardened armor glacis plates that were either brittle due to flaws or weakened as a result of combat. Maybe it was a burnt-out wreck, maybe it was one that had suffered shattering damage...direct hit from large calibre HE round...who knows.

Ah I see those Evil Soviets set out to falsify the results by using what real-life examples of Panthers they had on hand, rather than doing the right thing (going forward in time by 50 years and calculating the actual effectiveness of the gun against Panther armor and comparing this with combat reports).

The 88 and 100mm data matches pretty well to expected penetration ranges of 625 and 1600, but the 2500m+ requires the Panther armor to be less than 85% of "normal" effective thickness.

So? It happened. And while it is easy to chastise the "totalitarian" soviet personell foe "Falsifying" this data by using actual Panthers it is very hard to stand up to them and say "so we've seen it work on actual Panthers out to the max theoretical range, but I've calculated that that is impossible. Therefore you must rewrite your report to be mopre truthfull".

Why the discrepancy between test results and battlefield results?

If that is an argument to believe that these documents were falsified then I suggest you start a crusade against the use of American data, as any comparison between the glorious results of the 76mm gun in tests and it's impotence in actual combat situations shows the painfull difference between the fraudulent american test plate and actual german armor.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

"Zetterling and Frankson. Kursk 1943"

That is a particualrly good source because it doesn't use any "tainted" soviet sources

Seriously though, is anyone else frustrated about the fact that you don't have one definitive book on Kursk? As it stands we have two main contenders: on one hand we have Glantz's Kursk book filled with dry day-to-day reports of the soviets and on the other we have the Zetterling book that provides the same data for the other side...

[ October 19, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[JonS]

Vilho,

you asked the rest of the world not to get ticked off with the überFinns, then proceded to exhibit exactly the same annoying behaviour as the rest of the überFinns. To wit:

Originally posted by Vilho Nenonen:

...The artillery/mortar indirect fire procedure on the whole needs much tweaking imho, not just finnish artillery. But I'll concentrate on the finnish issue here...

Fair enough, talk about what you know.

... My fellow finns here have tried to explain our system of indirect fire, but perhaps not in the best way...

Well, they've explained it, and others have responded to it. It did get a bit heated (and still is in some cases - get a room you two!).

First of all, the system originated by gen. Nenonen was a system based on accuracy not on speed. I believe that the russians and other nations could throw shells into air much more rapidly. But not that accurately. Russians had like 1000 guns for every front km, so why deal with the number crunching?

Quite the collection of national slurs there. Well done. Do you have any info on other nations proceedures, other than your 'beliefs'?

Trigonometric calculations based on the FO point (won't go into too much detail here)and its relation to the target were/are kinda hard to calculate in comparison to corrections made in shooting distance and arc. Belive me. Yet if these calculations have been made beforehand (as the trp handily does), the response speed is merely based on the discipline of a firing unit.

True, but so what? The rest of the world has the odd mathematician too you know, who can be used to work out simple proceedures for their gunners. Also, the rest of the world isn't too proud to use TRPs.

Also, the structure of our FO hierarchy made it possible for a single FO to target different artillery units. So the current system, where a FO person has but one unit behind his orders is totally inappropriate for finns.

And the Commonwealth FOs. And the American FOs. And the German FOs. Should the Finnish FOs get special treatment do you think? Or should you all just use the same cludgy work arounds that have been the norm in CM for the last 2+ years, knowing that it can't be changed with the current engine? And, of course, wait with bated breath for [angelic voice]The Rewrite[/angelic voice]

Radio is a poor substitute for a line.

Which is of course why the military world has totally rejected the radio, and moved to a tactical communications system based totally on land line.

No - hang on a sec, that's not right ... hmm, what could it be? Either a) Vilho is right, and the armies of the world are collective dumbasses, or vice versa

In certain situations landline may be as good as radio, but it is tactically not mobile enough. In WWII radio was not as reliable as current radios, and under certain circumstances not as reliable as wire, but given the problems with landline (cut by enemy arty, cut by friendly arty, cut by vehicles driving over it, cut by footsloggers tripping over it, gnawed by rats, etc, etc) to say it was flat out better than radio is too much.

But the main problem is the indirect fire procedure on the whole.

This I can agree with. However, I can also live with what we've got now and wait for [angelic voice]The Rewrite[/angelic voice]

timing issues snipped

Yeah, but its a game. Coinsidering the amount of abstraction already in the arty model, this is minor.

After two years in a mortar company, these problems just don't feel too right.

After 10 years in artillery, these problems just don't feel too insurmountable.*

Regards

JonS

* For example - if you want to have one FO with access to more than one bty, just figure out how many btys you want to have sccess to, and add that many FOs. Also, add a note that they should all move around together, and fire at the same target. Visually it might look a bit odd, but do you want the effects in the game to be right, or do you so strenuosly object to having a 10-man FO party (eg, 5 x CM Spotters working together) that you refuse to consider it?

[ October 19, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:

"Zetterling and Frankson. Kursk 1943"

That is a particualrly good source because it doesn't use any "tainted" soviet sources

Seriously though, is anyone else frustrated about the fact that you don't have one definitive book on Kursk? As it stands we have two main contenders: on one hand we have Glantz's Kursk book filled with dry day-to-day reports of the soviets and on the other we have the Zetterling book that provides the same data for the other side...</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

"The Soviet General Staff. The Battle for Kursk", 1943 (originally published in 1944), p 222, 228:

[..]

"Zetterling and Frankson. Kursk 1943", p 102, 107-109:

Interestingly the very site* that you got this info from also has a review of Glantz' translation of the soviet general staff study. Now given that they point out this "interesting" bit of info on german tank strength in several reviews you'd think that they would warn you to avoid it like the plague

Apparently not:

"Glantz recently began work on a series of self-published volumes designed explicitly for a rather narrow market segment. For his more general audience, these are almost certainly overkill. For serious military specialists, academic researchers, wargame designers and the like, these are priceless gems.

The first of the gems is the translated and annotated Soviet report on the Battle of Kursk."

"To his credit -- and our delight -- Glantz has undertaken the task of self-publishing these highly specialized volumes. The downside of this otherwise commendable effort is that the relatively minuscule number of copies he expects to sell has imposed production limitations to the extent that it is necessary to print these as photocopied desktop publications.

[..]

While it's not possible to whole-heartedly recommend these volumes to more than the audience for which they are intended, it is possible to hope that enough specialists will discover and acquire them to keep the project rolling. "

Quotes from the review of Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study, by Glantz and Orenstein.

With regard to the 600 tank SS attack on Prokhovorka they note that "Fortunately, Glantz has annotated the text with explanatory footnotes and offers some cautionary advice in his Foreword."

So in conclusion I would say that I am quite justified in using TOT times from this book as accurate

* At least that's what I assume, because it has the exact same quotes in the exact some order

There will never be a Kursk `bible´, and the current situation is guite good, IMO, with Zetterling´s and Glantz´s books giving the info from both sides.

The situation isn't all bad, except that both books are expensive, published in small numbers (ie they'll disappear from the market) and rather unreadable. Can't someone take a few years of to distill all this info in one on-going narrative? Please...

[ October 19, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

JonS, a more generous way of making your point would be to say that these issues exist, but are in no way limited to (or exagerated for) finnish artillery

Btw: I would like to point out in particular that no evidence at all exist that would indicate that wire-FO's are inferior in any other aspect then movement speed.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

JonS, a more generous way of making your point would be to say that these issues exist, but are in no way limited to (or exagerated for) finnish artillery

True, and if I thought that would make any impression, I might have chosen that approach However having done that several times in the last 11 pages, with no perceptible change in the überFinn position, I decided a different tack was in order

[ October 19, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:

"The Soviet General Staff. The Battle for Kursk", 1943 (originally published in 1944), p 222, 228:

[..]

"Zetterling and Frankson. Kursk 1943", p 102, 107-109:

Interestingly the very site* that you got this info from also has a review of Glantz' translation of the soviet general staff study. Now given that they point out this "interesting" bit of info on german tank strength in several reviews you'd think that they would warn you to avoid it like the plague

Apparently not:

"Glantz recently began work on a series of self-published volumes designed explicitly for a rather narrow market segment. For his more general audience, these are almost certainly overkill. For serious military specialists, academic researchers, wargame designers and the like, these are priceless gems.

The first of the gems is the translated and annotated Soviet report on the Battle of Kursk."

"To his credit -- and our delight -- Glantz has undertaken the task of self-publishing these highly specialized volumes. The downside of this otherwise commendable effort is that the relatively minuscule number of copies he expects to sell has imposed production limitations to the extent that it is necessary to print these as photocopied desktop publications.

[..]

While it's not possible to whole-heartedly recommend these volumes to more than the audience for which they are intended, it is possible to hope that enough specialists will discover and acquire them to keep the project rolling. "

Quotes from the review of Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study, by Glantz and Orenstein.

With regard to the 600 tank SS attack on Prokhovorka they note that "Fortunately, Glantz has annotated the text with explanatory footnotes and offers some cautionary advice in his Foreword."

So in conclusion I would say that I am quite justified in using TOT times from this book as accurate

* At least that's what I assume, because it has the exact same quotes in the exact some order </font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

Yes, I took it from there, because it was the fastest way.

I thought it was rather funny coincidence that I was looking for their review of the general staff study and stumbled on the exact same text I had read not 10 seconds before

How that makes the original Soviet staff study a reliable source, beats me. :confused:

Perhaps I should have quoted their quote of Glantz' forword:

The volume, however, is not without fault and error. Either intentionally or coincidentally, while opening new horizons on the famous battle, the work also perpetuates myths. It does so by over-glorifying the scale of the Red Army's victory and by magnifying the grandeur of its accomplishments at Kursk. For example, long before the postwar histories did so, it overstates the scope and impact of the tank battle at Prokhorovka. In particular, like other classified studies and postwar works, it overestimates the strength of the Germans and understates or simply neglects the ultimate terrible cost of the victory. Therefore, while of immense value, the work must be weighed accordingly.

I've found the latter to be true of almost any source or book on world war 2 history [and many other subjects]. You always have to take the bad with the good I'm afraid and weigh sources against each other, rather than dismiss out of hand all sources from one party (or even all sources from a given country over a period of eighty years!).

[ October 19, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I've found the latter to be true of almost any source or book on world war 2 history [and many other subjects]. You always have to take the bad with the good I'm afraid and weigh sources against each other, rather than dismiss out of hand all sources from one party (or even all sources from a given country over a period of eighty years!).

Well, you are absolutely right about that one.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

Well, you are absolutely right about that one.

And the history of the soviet 1944 offensive you posted clearly confirms that view

Because while it is in itself a good overview of what happened and provides a good narrative, it also shows its innate prejudice in several things.

For example a lot of thought is spared to give praise to Mannerheim in his infinite wisdom and the finnish ability and flexibility in general on one hand, while the soviets on the other hand are consistently characterised as being without initiative or creativity (eg doing everything by the text book, no tactical or operational imagination, doing everything based on calculation, ridiculing the alleged faith in calculation above everything else) even where this is obviously contradicted elsewehere in the same text (eg the beach landing, using "finnish" tactics, etc).

Most debatable are the author's second-guessing of everything the soviets did (using 20/20 hindsight to point out how much better they could have done..), his consistent portrayal of the soviets inability to achieve their (alleged) operational goals as defeats, and his conclusion that the soviet were frightened into halting the offensive by the Überfinns*. Even though in his introduction he points out that the fighting was neccesitated by the fact that the Finns were unwilling to accept the offered armistice, and the war ended as Finns accepted these very harsh soviet conditions.

Still even though I have just listed a veritable mountain of objections I found the article to be interesting, entertaining factual and illuminating

Thanks for posting it.

* "In its tactical wisdom and flexibility the Finnish attack was a final sign to Russians to not to continue attacks anymore."

[ October 19, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by JonS:

True, and if I thought that would make any impression, I might have chosen that approach However having done that several times in the last 11 pages, with no perceptible change in the überFinn position, I decided a different tack was in order

Ah feel your pain [bites lip, tries to look presidential].

I am more than a little frustrated at the fact that after 7 pages of discussion most of the "problem" turns out to be caused by a misinterpreation of the slow attribute given to wire FOs. And yet this myth of disadvantadged wire operators still lingers on...

Not to mention the still repeated demand that Finns be given Fausts (already on the list for the next patch), the consistent reiteration of finnish artillery doctrine (albeit in good faith on Vilho's part) as if it existed in a vacuum, etc.

Besides these Finns are hardier than I expected, you'd think that my deluge of posts would ultimatly numb them into to submission, but no.....

[EDIT] Every time I edit my post I introduce more spelling errors.. either I'm dyslcix* or it some kind of conspiracy :eek:

* I meant to spell that wrong in an attempt at humor, it came out deifferent then I intended though...

[ October 19, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Im sorry, after commets like how the finns won over the Red Army twice,I dont take uber finns seriously anymore.

If you compare the handiwork of our army to that of the German one, then, hell yeah, I'd call that a victory ! Not "victory" in the sense of Allies over Axis, no. In both Winter and Continuation Wars the main goal for Finns (notice the lack of über ) was to secure Finnish sovereignity, and in this they succeeded.

Oh, and if you're not taking me seriously because I'm a Finn, then I guess I'll be ignoring your posts from now on !

[ October 19, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Prinz Eugen ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

If you compare the handiwork of our army to that of the German one, then, hell yeah, I'd call that a victory ! Not "victory" in the sense of Allies over Axis, no. In both Winter and Continuation Wars the main goal for Finns (notice the lack of über ) was to secure Finnish sovereignity, and in this they succeeded.

The problem here is that we could probably all agree on this, except it has already been called a lie, anglo-american propaganda, and a myth by some of your compatriots.

Apparently if you don't agree that the Finns a chieved an unquotation marked Victory and defeated the soviet union outright twice you are misunderstanding history.. at least that's how it seems. And that is what's causing a lot of friction, and the belief that (some) Finns believe the 0berfinn mythology.

[Edited for spelling & typos]

[ October 19, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Could the Finns get radio FO ? (I guess that, if not already available, would resolve most gripes people have with Finn arty).

Those gripes are based on nothing, there is no problem with Finnish FO's and no need for radio FO's (that aren't superior to wire FO's anyway).

It's all just a simple misunderstanding.</font>

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

How was it faked/distorted?

Well, lets take a look at some parts of that From these results it is obvious that the Soviet guns were much superior to all (both L56 and L71) 88mm guns produced by Germany.

Given the fact that there was no option to take the german guns into production this is actually meaningless info. </font>

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

If you compare the handiwork of our army to that of the German one, then, hell yeah, I'd call that a victory ! Not "victory" in the sense of Allies over Axis, no. In both Winter and Continuation Wars the main goal for Finns (notice the lack of über ) was to secure Finnish sovereignity, and in this they succeeded.

The problem here is that we could probably all agree on this, except it has already been called a lie, anglo-american propaganda, and a myth by some of your compatriots.

Apparently if you don't agree that the Finns a chieved an unquotation marked Victory and defeated the soviet union outright twice you are misunderstanding history.. at least that's how it seems. And that is what's causing a lot of friction, and the belief that (some) Finns believe the 0berfinn mythology.

[Edited for spelling & typos]</font>

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and Kallimakhos, neither of us mentioned the brilliant military actions conducted by the Germans and Finns after they supposedly were at war with each other. Again, the Finns showed their pragmatisim and ingenuity. Instead of attacking the Germans as they agreed to do for the Soviets, they conducted one of the most brilliant stage acts of all time! This served two main purposes:

1. It preserved Finnish lives and property which otherwise might be lost if a serious shooting war started with the Germans.

2. It allowed the Finns to have their interior transit system destroyed by the retreating Germans. This was a very sensible precaution if the Soviets decided to advance again (i.e. key bridges and rails were destroyed). And by allowing the Germans to do it, which was reasonable for them to do under the guise of hostilities, the Finns were able to protect themselves to a degree and yet still say to the Soviets that they were not doing it.

Of course this broke down after a while. The Soviets pressured the Finns to make things move along faster and the Germans stupidly didn't take the hint. This might have been fixed if Hitler had not got the brilliant idea that the Germans could take over Finland like they did Hungary. Big mistake. Awe crap... mind is going blank here... what was the name of the island that the Germans got their asses handed to them in a bucket?

In any case, the faked war with the Germans did work to the advantage of both the Germans and the Finns. Again, very smart thinking... in fact, this reminds me to never go to war against the Finns. Oh, and never engage in a land war in Asia

Steve

This is the history as it should hve been, but you give too much credit for both the sides. Finns and Germans both hoped to make it peacefully, but Soviet insisted being more brutal and some Finnish generals were willing. The fighting in Tornio was wery real, and all the fighting after that. The pretend war between Germany and Finland lasted only one or two weeks, after that it was bloody as ever. For Finns it was the price of keeping independence, Germans felt betrayed and burned Lapponia. There were real, bloody battles that should and could be replayed in CMBB. So please, make it historical, and let the Finns fight Germans!!!

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[EDIT] I feel my post was way to quarrelsome in nature, I will post a better one soon

[ October 20, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Im sorry, after commets like how the finns won over the Red Army twice,I dont take uber finns seriously anymore.

And when exactly I stated that? I guess you didn´t even read the article I posted.</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Foxbat, it very great of you to take interest, every discussion needs sparring and questioning, and you obviously know what you are talking about. But this one post is the poorest from you since the start, and has zero information value. You can fight your imaginary Tero in your every post or then actually try to contribute and discuss the issues, we all can learn from.

Maybe I was not clear in how I said it, but this is a serious issue for us non-Finns.

There is a serious number of Finns (not just Tero ) that will simply erupt in rage if you dare claim that Finland was "defeated" in either war. And these Finns seem intent on pounding into us the belief that Finland actually won both the Winter and Continuation Wars.

And it's these Finns that in many ways form the image we have of Finns and their attitude towards the past. Hence it often seems to us that Finns are stuck in their own 0berfinn mythos.

I agree with Prinz Eugen's assesment that "Not "victory" in the sense of Allies over Axis, no. In both Winter and Continuation Wars the main goal for Finns (notice the lack of über ) was to secure Finnish sovereignity, and in this they succeeded." but I have also seen that same assesment branded a myth, lie or propaganda!

I guess you can understand how that leads to misunderstanding and irritation on our (non-Finns) part.

[ October 19, 2002, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Im sorry, after commets like how the finns won over the Red Army twice,I dont take uber finns seriously anymore.

And when exactly I stated that? I guess you didn´t even read the article I posted.</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Hmm, what's the problem here, boys? Yep, even Finns had some radios, historical fact. Whats the prob?

No problem, the Finns had radios but preferred not to use them unless they absolutely had to, so giving the Finns radio-FO's would be counter to their own doctrine

And besides the only difference between wire and radio FO's is how fast/far they can move around the map. In the case of the Finns that would be usefull only for 'gamey' reasons (moving your FO's with maneauver units, which didn't happen historically).

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Foxbat, it very great of you to take interest, every discussion needs sparring and questioning, and you obviously know what you are talking about. But this one post is the poorest from you since the start, and has zero information value. You can fight your imaginary Tero in your every post or then actually try to contribute and discuss the issues, we all can learn from.

Maybe I was not clear in how I said it, but this is a serious issue for us non-Finns.

There is a serious number of Finns (not just Tero ) that will simply erupt in rage if you dare claim that Finland was "defeated" in either war. And these Finns seem intent on pounding into us the belief that Finland actually won both the Winter and Continuation Wars.

And it's these Finns that in many ways form the image we have of Finns and their attitude towards the past. Hence it often seems to us that Finns are stuck in their own 0berfinn mythos.

</font>