Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

The whole thing was summed up best by one of Väinö Linna's characters that stated that this was the best war ever, both sides won.

Both sides won,

but at a price. I would say that it's quite even, both won within their own frame of reference, both paid a high price and neither gained particularly much.. but the most important thing of course is that the Finns kept their independence.

And if you can afford, give them Finns some credit that they actually fought better than Germans. Thats all they want. And actually have bragging rignts to say so.

My guess is that just about everyone (except maybe some hard-core swedes) respect what the Finns achieved and how they held up in the war

I'm surprised no-one brought up the battles between russians an germans in Finland. What do Finns think about that?

And how did the local population feel about their "double liberation"? (from german occupation and the "finnish yoke" that had laid on their shoulders for decades), the massive relocations on the Isthmus are well known, but were the "inhabitants" of Petsamo equally eager to run?

[ October 20, 2002, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I'm surprised no-one brought up the battles between russians an germans in Finland. What do Finns think about that?

And how did the local population feel about their "double liberation"? (from german occupation and the "finnish yoke" that had laid on their shoulders for decades), the massive relocations on the Isthmus are well known, but were the "inhabitants" of Petsamo equally eager to run?

Hmm, you make many questions. The first is easy. The German divisions fighting in Finland were usually very unsuccesfull and laughed at. Basically Germans were just no use attacking in arctic or heawy woods. On the other hand, In 1944 German army gave decisive support on defending Finnish shores agains Russian amphbious attack.

Your other questions sound actually interesting, if one would understand what the questions were? Don't shy away, but try to formulate your questions better, and there might arise actual discussion on these important and interesting issues.

[Kallimakhos]

Double post.

[ October 20, 2002, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

[QB]And looking at the cost in lives an the fact that neither said actually gained much of anything from the conflict I guess they both lost too So I agree, let's call it even..

Thanks but no thanks. Where is your family from and what is your experience? Are you Dutch or from some other place? I mean no disrespect and sure, you maybe a supergrog, unlike me.

I lost two great uncles on the front and that don't make me proud, just sad. Me being a bad-ass CM player is totally unrelated to my family history.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Thanks but no thanks.

Again we seem to disagree where there is no disagreement :\ I guess my post was perhaps poorly worded, I will try to rephrase it better as I was trying to agree with you.

Where is your family from and what is your experience? Are you Dutch or from some other place?

I'm dutch, like most dutch my family spent the war as civilians under occupation. Except one of my grandfathers who happened to become a mature adult during the occupation and was rounded up and had to do forced labour, under fire, in germany - but at least he survived the war.

I mean no disrespect and sure, you maybe a supergrog, unlike me.

I'm no 0bergrog either, I just read a lot

I lost two great uncles on the front and that don't make me proud, just sad. Me being a bad-ass CM player is totally unrelated to my family history.

I see what you mean.

[Vilho Nenonen]

Jon, thanks for the reply, I'll try to explain my writing.

Originally posted by 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:

Well, I tried to be quite polite and modest. I tried to say that there's a proud man in every men.

Fair enough, talk about what you know.

That's what I intend to do.

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!).

Is there room for civilized discussion or is my attempt futile?

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

That depends obviously on how you define word info. Apart from various historical books I have discussed with people who have used russian artillery in modern days and all they have told me confirms my 'beliefs'. And I didn't knew I slurred anyone. I wish we had guns and ammo to throw day long bombardments.

But I do not have any russian or american or other national manuals of that time period. Do you?

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.

I was just trying to establish the fact that our artillery emphasizes accuracy and timing. I didn't believe that you just throw stuff up. Everyone uses trp's as far as I know, the question is how much time and energy you use to get it exactly there.

And the Commonwealth FOs. And the American FOs. And the German FOs. Should the Finnish FOs get special treatment do you think?

No, I don't think. Did I say so? If I did, then that was a mistake. I was just trying to work on that slightly annoying bit in this simulation.

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]

Very sarcastic. I am not familiar with this scene that much. I just told what I felt was wrong in the game.

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.

I'll redefine my claim. Line is better in terms of reliability and use. Radio is certainly better for highly mobile forces. I assumed that everyone understood that. Still I continue to claim that the line is more reliable and generally superior to the radio. Today the problem is electronical warfare and in WWII period is the basic 'do I get the contact' in given circumstances. Or do you disagree?

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

So are you implying that I am a collective dumbass? Never been accused of that. Gotta put it in my CV.

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.

Is it in terms of reliability? You mention problems that can be avoided mostly (only the enemy shells are quite unavoidable], no line that we still build here has to suffer from vehicles and men that much. You probably know that the line isn't just drawn there.

My basic experience with radios you used in Vietnam is only confirming my believe in line. Operating those things is like creating magic sometimes. I don't believe that WWII radios were better.

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]

Perhaps so. I like the game as it is.

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

Do you really think so? If an FO has to correct fire, it should take more than few seconds to hit the target properly. Calculations have to be made, adjustments on guns and then the time that the shell travels. A 120mm mortar shell going up and down can be almost a turn in the air before hitting anything.

Perhaps not a big problem, but a thing to point out imho.

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

There are lesser things that people seem to fight over in this forum.

But since you have personal experience, would you wish to discuss on artillery procedures? I'd like to know few basic things like how do you establish the position of firing unit, basic directions et cetera.

* 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?

Cumbersome. I'd like to have three FO teams and direct any given fire to anywhere in the field from any of those teams. Removes me from getting an authentic experience, but isn't too great to stop playing.

[ October 20, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Vilho Nenonen ]

[Vilho Nenonen]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I'm surprised no-one brought up the battles between russians an germans in Finland. What do Finns think about that?

As Kallimakhos told us, the german mountain corps was ineffective and only through much time they understood that you get killed if you wet your boots in winter. Our troops had to save them many times. But to be fair to the germans, there were quite heavy formations protecting Murmansk and the railroad could move supplies and reserves with speed that they hadn't.

And how did the local population feel about their "double liberation"? (from german occupation and the "finnish yoke" that had laid on their shoulders for decades), the massive relocations on the Isthmus are well known, but were the "inhabitants" of Petsamo equally eager to run?

You mean in the Lappland? What liberation?Basically, those people were finns, so the question is quite meaningless. Some lapps, but they are of our tribe so there's not that much 'yoke' as you might suggest.

German 'occupation' was quite beneficial to the native finn population there and when our troops had to wage some war against germans, the men and women up there were quite angry at first.

But then, when the germans started to burn the place down (after the soviets suggested that we needed some help in throwing them out and we had to really shoot them), the population didn't feel that good. Today, they are remembered with some resentment as the burners of Lapp.

And to answer to your question if the finns living in Petsamo evacuated themselves when the russians came, the answer is yes. I mean, who in their right mind would want to travel Kolyma?

Kallimakhos:

On the other hand, In 1944 German army gave decisive support on defending Finnish shores agains Russian amphbious attack.

And not to mention the agreement that brought grain and weapons to our country. I am grateful for that.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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.

For a moment I thought you were one of those stubborn Russians, who still claim that the operational goals of Soviet forces were Viipuri and Petroskoi only, ignoring the fact that the opened archives have revealed the truth. FE you can find those alleged Soviet operational goals from the war diaries of Soviet 21st Army and 30th Guards Rifle Corps.

When it comes to the offered armistice, its terms were much more acceptable by early September, because of the crushing defeats Germans had suffered on Eastern front, not forgetting the `Second front´ which was succesfully established in France. Kicking the Germans out of the country was much easier then.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Vilho Nenonen:

Thanks for the answers.

You mean in the Lappland? What liberation?Basically, those people were finns, so the question is quite meaningless. Some lapps, but they are of our tribe so there's not that much 'yoke' as you might suggest.

That's what I was wondering about, I have read only translated russian sources and they either don't mention it at all or mention the return of Pechanga to russia.

I did not know if the people there considered themselves to be russian, and were thus living under "occupation" by the Finns (although occupation in finland would probably be preferable to "freedom" in the soviet-union).

German 'occupation' was quite beneficial to the native finn population there and when our troops had to wage some war against germans, the men and women up there were quite angry at first.

Understandably so, as it wasn't a real occupation until...

...the germans started to burn the place down (after the soviets suggested that we needed some help in throwing them out and we had to really shoot them), the population didn't feel that good. Today, they are remembered with some resentment as the burners of Lapp.

Whenever they went anywhere the germans sure seemed to have had a habit of destroying any goodwill among the civilian population by random acts of terror and destruction...

My own country was quite pro-german before the war, and probably one of the meekest under occupation yet we've had to suffer quite barbaric acts against civilians, not to mention the looting and destruction that went on in the final years of the war. Here too the germand are remembered with great resentment.

And to answer to your question if the finns living in Petsamo evacuated themselves when the russians came, the answer is yes. I mean, who in their right mind would want to travel Kolyma?

I see, thanks for the answers.

[ October 20, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I'm surprised no-one brought up the battles between russians an germans in Finland. What do Finns think about that?

What I do know is that Soviet planes tried to support Finnish defenders at Suursaari (island on the eastern part of the Baltic Sea), when Germany tried to capture it 15.9.1944 (Operation Tanne Ost). What they actually managed to do was 1)prevented Finnish counter-attack and 2)hit the sunken ships in local harbour.

Then there is the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation, but I haven´t read about that much.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

What I do know is that Soviet planes tried to support Finnish defenders at Suursaari (island on the eastern part of the Baltic Sea), when Germany tried to capture it 15.9.1944 (Operation Tanne Ost). What they actually managed to do was 1)prevented Finnish counter-attack and 2)hit the sunken ships in local harbour.

Air support without direct control from the ground is hard enough as it is, not to mention the fact that this involved suporting a foreign army. But to their credit the soviet planes managed to hit some of the germans ships as they retreated from the island.. don't know if they did any damage though.

[Vilho Nenonen]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Thanks for the answers.

You are welcome.

That's what I was wondering about, I have read only translated russian sources and they either don't mention it at all or mention the return of Pechanga to russia.

I did not know if the people there considered themselves to be russian, and were thus living under "occupation" by the Finns (although occupation in finland would probably be preferable to "freedom" in the soviet-union).

Russians were only concentrated in few big cities in whole of Carelia, Murmansk and few others. The people there were Carelians, poor people who have been but assimilated through forced collectivism and relocations.

Whenever they went anywhere the germans sure seemed to have had a habit of destroying any goodwill among the civilian population by random acts of terror and destruction...

This particular act wasn't that random if you think of that. Simple, efficient but unnecessary burning had some military purposes. Also, it was the end of 1944 and they were quite disillusioned after old comrades had to turn weapons against them.

I understand and I don't, yet this was hardly in level of what some other people had to participate in.

My own country was quite pro-german before the war, and probably one of the meekest under occupation yet we've had to suffer quite barbaric acts against civilians, not to mention the looting and destruction that went on in the final years of the war. Here too the germand are remembered with great resentment.

Yes, I don't know the details of your country, but the war is hell for those countries that have to be the stage for operations. Germans surely weren't the only ones to commit malevolent acts.

[ October 20, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Vilho Nenonen ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

FE you can find those alleged Soviet operational goals

My use of alleged refers mostly to the authors claims of the required operational tempo (if the operation deviates from it's expected tempo it's not neccesesarily a defeat, or even a failure to reach operational goals -although it could be) and the claim that the destruction of finnish army in the first days was one of the main operational goals. This may have been one of the aims of the campaign, and even worded into orders it was never a realistic possibility.

The terrain circumstances prevented an encirclement and the only places the finnish forces could possibly be held in place were major defensive strongpoints, and any willingness on the part of the Finns to sacrifice these would immediatly make total destruction of these units impossible (as happened in reality).

[EDIT] I took out my comments on th armistice, suffice to say that I agree with you in general terms and that I feel that this subject is to delicate enough that I don't need to put my vision on it in my post (and possibly unneccesarily hurt finnish feelings -I have probably done to much of that already in this thread).

[ October 20, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

FE you can find those alleged Soviet operational goals

My use of alleged refers mostly to the authors claims of the required operational tempo (if the operation deviates from it's expected tempo it's not neccesesarily a defeat, or even a failure to reach operational goals -although it could be) and the claim that the destruction of finnish army in the first days was one of the main operational goals. This may have been one of the aims of the campaign, and even worded into orders it was never a realistic possibility.

The terrain circumstances prevented an encirclement and the only places the finnish forces could possibly be held in place were major defensive strongpoints, and any willingness on the part of the Finns to sacrifice these would immediatly make total destruction of these units impossible (as happened in reality).</font>

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I took out my comments on th armistice, suffice to say that I agree with you in general terms and that I feel that this subject is to delicate enough that I don't need to put my vision on it in my post (and possibly unneccesarily hurt finnish feelings -I have probably done to much of that already in this thread).

I bet I´ve heard the comments before...

[Geier]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

My guess is that just about everyone (except maybe some hard-core swedes) respect what the Finns achieved and how they held up in the war.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one Swede not incredibly impressed with what the Finns achieved during WW2. Personally, I find all attempts at making the Finnish troops over the board undefeatable in CM an affront and an insult to what the real soldiers achieved.

Oh, and Väinö Linna's "Unknown Soldier" is the best war novel to come out of the Second World War if you ask me. I might have read it ten times by now.

Great posts, foxbat and JonS. Keep em coming.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

I bet I´ve heard the comments before...

It's just an issue of nuance (no I wasn't suggesting Finland capitulated ), no big deal I just felt that I couldn't bring it across subtly enough

[Keke]

Originally posted by Geier:

Personally, I find all attempts at making the Finnish troops over the board undefeatable in CM an affront and an insult to what the real soldiers achieved.

Nobody´s asking for undefeatable Finnish troops, only minor TO&E changes, some of them more justified than others. It seems to me that the überfinn argument is used only by those who desperately try to to keep the TO&E untouchable for the reasons I don´t know (maybe defending Battlefront when there´s really no need to; this is a great game already. )

[JonS]

Originally posted by Keke:

Nobody´s asking for undefeatable Finnish troops ...

Yes they are:

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Here's a doable suggestion ... which might silence most of the justified gripes: give Finns TRP's say at 90% reduction in summer 1944. This will make Russians attacking Finns a hell, unfair and frustrating close to boring, if the defender knows what he's doing...

[Ari Maenpaa]

JR 8,

Great to read about your father’s recollections, thanks. I would like to hear more.

My grandfather also fought his war in JR 8, but unfortunately he passed away several years ago and I hadn’t an oppurtunity to ask him everything about the wars I now wish I had. He was in a machine gun company, but not in the one depicted in the “Unknown Soldier”. Anyway he knew the real persons behind Linna’s characters.

Ari

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Your fact quoting of response time is many times worse than what the current response time is for Finns.

I had a crack FO gets a 6min delay when shifting fire from TRP some ~100meters. For example. Does not seem to be overly better than the one I mentioned.

Are you arguing that we should make things worse?

If you can show conclusively the average responce time under all conditions (including the topographical preparations) and regardless of the organizational level for Allied and German ordnance types was 1min into non-TRP locations anywhere in the map then so be it.

Also remember that Experience setting has a lot to do with response time.

I know this. I know better than that. The experience level is not the issue. Overall, my elite überFinns are elite enough. It is just my elite Germans get preferential treatment while my elite überFinns get the shft.

Mind you, a crack FO gets a 6min delay when shifting fire from TRP some ~100meters ?!?

Yes, that does affect all. But is as relevent as it is unrealistic for the Finns as the rest.

And what is this "fast" FO you keep mentioning? The Wire FOs have a Speed (movement speed) of Slow and Radio FOs have a Speed (movement speed).

I stand corrected.

From now on they shall refer to fast, medium and slow responce time.

As for why there are no Radio FOs for the Finns... I'll have to look into that.

Please.

But from one of our researchers, this is what we had to go on:

"Throughout the war there was a severe shortage of radios. In 1941 there was usually one radio per batallion, but many had none and the communication was done using field phones (prone to malfunction), dispatch runners (very slow), or signal flares. In defence, specific flare signals were arranged so that the company commanders could call fire on registered targets."

First: is this referring to infantry or artillery in particular or just a general observation ? One radio in an artillery battalion is going to be used to contact who ?

Company commanders (not FO's) calling in arty by flare would suggest infantry is being referred to. (BTW: registered targets could also include friendly positions. Friendly positions as well as TRP's were noted on the fire plans for safety reasons and at times fire was called in on friendly positions to contain break ins or to facilitate counter attacks. Since the exact general location of the friendly positions was known they can be said to be TRP's).

"Field phones prone to malfunction" is a bit vague. Yes, the line could and would get cut for a number of reasons. But I trust you are aware this was alleviated some by either time permitting building a ladder network that would allow some level of redundancy in case the line got broken in a several places (if luck would have it there would still be an intact line going from A to and/or by building extra connections between field phone switch board stations and hooking up command and FO networks together at (higher) HQ levels.

Dispatch runners: propably used by an infantry force (platoon/company) CO more likely than the actual FO team. Very skow indeed.

One option which is not mentioned but IMO should have been: fire direction/request from (FO) units in neighbouring sectors. Since the state of the communications was not a secret this expedient was sometimes used when it was evident the communications in the sector under attack were compromised. In par with the batteries using own initiative to fire at the sound of the guns.

From the sound of it Radio FOs should have high rarity value.

Agreed.

Still, the thing is the Finnish sources maintain the radio was (slightly) more reliable as a means of communication but never ever have I seen the land line based communications been mentioned as being inherently slower means of communication or that the form of communication would have slowed down the gambit. The average responce rates mentioned in the Winter War site do not distinguish between radio and land line communications. Since the radios were in very short supply they in fact mean the average gambit times are almost exlusively done using wire communications.

For the rewrite it would be realistic if there was a XX percentage chance a land line FO would lose his communications and ability to call in fire for say 15 mins (a time it would take a line reparation team to fix it) during a battle due to opening turn barrage and anytime his immediate location gets under heavy fire after that. That should not however cancel already started fire missions though. A failure rate for radios should also be assigned to account for athmospherics, dead batteries and other relevant reasons for the radios to go dead. But if the communications remain intact the delays should be the same for all forms of communications.

Also, the korjausmuunnin is not relevant to CMBB because the game engine can not simulate multiple battery fire at all, nor can it simulate battery fire from non-FOs.

Do not get hung up on the multiple battery fire too much.

The ability to direct multiple batteries by a single FO was an added bonus of the korjausmuunnin. It was every bit as useful in facilitating and speeding up the fire direction when directing single batteries. It was/is not used by the FO at the FO location, it was/is used at the battery calculation team. I saw it being used this spring during my refresher training and the procedure is something like this: the (not necessarily called in by the FO) target spot is pinned on the map overlay, the rotary dial is set and the firing solution is read from the edges. A light mortar battery can do a 180º turn around and gambit on the new target in under 2 or 3 minutes.

And I do understand independent non-spotted (FO or command unit) fire from batteries is something that can not be put in.

I wonder why you weren't here complaining till you were blue in the face while playing the Americans or Commonwealth forces in CMBO since both of these features were absent then too

After butting heads on this with Andreas among others I learned for example the Germans and the Allies in France did not have accurate 1:20 000 maps of the area of operations available to them while I knew the Finns had such maps. And I trusted the tape measure approach of the US Army was being taken into account when you did the modelling. I bet you had not even heard of the existence of the korjausmuunnin at that time.

In case of the Isthmus front there were 1:20 000 maps already before 1939. Did they suddenly lose the benefits they provided,even when conducting non-assault style operations ? I do not know what kind of a survey operations the Allied and the German armies ran but if the Finnish army could for example provide ik-maps adequate (if not ideally perfect) for conduct of artillery operations (but certainly adequate enough for orienteering) in 48 hours from taking the recce photo on unknown terrain that should count for something.

I knew the artillery procedures of both the Allies and the Germans differed from the Finnish one. Since the CMBO model was made to model these there was nothing major to gripe about apart from the barrage shell fall pattern, fire type and density.

[ October 21, 2002, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Nabla]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for why there are no Radio FOs for the Finns... I'll have to look into that.

Please.

But from one of our researchers, this is what we had to go on:

"Throughout the war there was a severe shortage of radios. In 1941 there was usually one radio per batallion, but many had none and the communication was done using field phones (prone to malfunction), dispatch runners (very slow), or signal flares. In defence, specific flare signals were arranged so that the company commanders could call fire on registered targets."

Here's more info for you, translated by yours truly.

Paulaharju, Sinerma, Koskimaa: The History of Finnish Field Artillery (Suomen Kenttätykistön Historia), vol. 2

Communications Equipment

One of the fundamental prerequisites of efficient field artillery is adequate communications equipment and corresponding channels of communication. During the Winter War, the signal equipment and channels of communications were almost completely based on telephone connections. There were very few radios, on the average 2-3 radios for each battery. When the [Winter] war started, the field army had altogether 165 C-radios and 50 D-radios. The latter were mostly in the use of artillery. Even from this set of radios, some were old and not fit for field duty. During the battles, connections were broken, which caused many serious situations, and the connection between fire observer and the firing position was often non-existent. Far too often the artillery had to resort to relatively inefficient map firing [kartta-ammunta].

At the beginning of The Continuation War, communications equipment was still many-colored, and partially of poor quality. In spite of this, the artillery units were able to obtain a relatively good amount of wire communication equipment, such as phones and 10-wire field centrals. However, there was a shortage of proper field cable; the whole field army had only 78% of estimated overall need.

At the beginning of [Continuation] war, the radio equipment of the field artillery consisted almost entirely of a batch of 100 D-radios (P-12-14) bought from Germany during the truce. There was a screaming shortage of radio equipment. The Finnish D-radio (P-12-15) had just entered production and experiences from the first equipment was partially negative. The problems seemed to be mostly related to their susceptibility to noise, and inadequate tolerance of water. Radio shortage was alleviated by handing over to the artillery half of the C-radios originally designated for infantry. By fall 1942, two Finnish radio factories were able to produce a sufficient amount of D-radios, so that the worst shortage was resolved. According to the TO&E of a field artillery regiment, accepted during the truce, each signal section of the battery had one radio, each fire control unit of a battery had two radios, and each fire position unit had one radio. In fall 1942, each field artillery battery had on the average 7 D-radios and 6 short-wave radios (P-12-12-U). Based on the experiences obtained during battle action, the commanders of artillery units hoped for more C-radios, which guaranteed better the connections to rear units and neighboring units. The short-wave radios were not considered as reliable, because of their limitations with respect to the terrain. In 1942 the shortage of C-radios in artillery was estimated to be 85 radios. Among the coveted models of fire observer radios were German Telefunken D-radios, and the Hungarian radios were also considered to be acceptable. Radios obtained from the Soviets were also used, although their technical quality was not satisfactory.

During the attack phase in summer 1941 most of the communication channels of the field artillery consisted of wire connections, which were built along with the advance. This was the only way to take care of communication needs, and it required occasionally a lot of patrols for fixing the lines. The signal section of a battery had 14 phones and 55 kms of field cable, the fire control units of the batteries had 5 phones and 10kms of field cable. There was a continuous shortage of field cable, and the Finnish industry produced as much cable as was possible whenever sufficient amounts of raw material were obtained from abroad. During the trench war many of the phone lines behind the front were converted to clear line connections [kirkasjohtoyhteys], which relieved the shortage of field line. In summer 1944, the weaknesses of the line connections were emphasized. Artillery fire cut many lines, and during the retreat phase a lot of field cable was left behind because there was not enough time to take the built communication lines apart. At the same time, over 100 D-radios were lost to the enemy, although not all of those belonged to the artillery.

The efficient use of field artillery requires reliable communication lines with a sufficient range. During The Continuation War, the technically high firing efficiency of the Finnish artillery could not be fully utilized due to the lack of needed communications equipment.

[ October 21, 2002, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Nabla:

Paulaharju, Sinerma, Koskimaa: The History of Finnish Field Artillery (Suomen Kenttätykistön Historia), vol. 2

Man ! I need to get a raise so I can finally get that series.

During The Continuation War, the technically high firing efficiency of the Finnish artillery could not be fully utilized due to the lack of needed communications equipment.

Can you tell if that "fully utilized" refers to actual, tactical level (CM level single battery) fire missions or massing larger concentration of fire from multiple batteries on point targets under a single FO ?

And while you are at it can you please translate and post a section on fireplans, co-operation with the infantry units and other relevant procedures.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

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.

What kind of behaviour do you consider to be non-annoying then ? Submissive, "BFC has gotten it all down absolutely correctly, sorry about our little batch of totally irrelavant and contradictory data" style ?

I remember a time when Steve cathegorically denied there was any evidence around on the differences in optics quality. Lo and behold, there are different levels of optics now in CMBB and nobody cries "national bias, national bias".

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.

Well, the land line is still going strong even though the radio IS the best, right ? If your arse gets EMP'd which do you think will be more reliable, a land line or a radio ?

In certain situations landline may be as good as radio, but it is tactically not mobile enough.

Depends totally on the tactics and the level of mechanization of the army.

And even the Germans developed mobile phone switchboard HT's on SdKfz-251 chassis. I wonder why ?

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

Could that be because there are differences in the respective systems ?