Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

Winterwar.com writes about the artillery practices of the Winter war era (1939 – ‘40) only, but I think that the korjausmuunnin, officially intruduced in July of 1943, was the most significant single innovation used by the Finnish artillery during WWII.

That was the tool which really gave the Finns the ability to concentrate the fire of all guns in range to a single target point, and make it quickly. The summer of ’44 showed the real potential of the new method. Even the Finnish infantrymen noticed the new power of own artillery and have mentioned it in many interviews and memoirs. Korjausmuunnin was invented by a Finnish artillery method teacher Unto Petäjä, and it was kept secret until the end of war even from the Germans.

Ok, I'm starting to get a picture here, but is ther an english language equivalent (or at least translation) for "Korjausmuunnin"?

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Okay, now lemme get this straight. Finnish books are always right, Western books (is Finland near China), are always wrong.

Heh, that reminds me of old joke about Russian nightmare: "Border clashes between China and Finland..." .

What some people do not understand is that "magical" achievements in Winter War and Continuation war were not caused by some superhuman feats. What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability. If there were ample equipment and human resources, I doubt that tactics and doctrine would have been as refined.

I don't understand what is the beef about including tanks that were used historically, given the rarity rules. If it was used, it's OK. I doubt that anyone would buy +900 % rarity KV-1s in QB as Finn .

About artillery...preregistering/preplotting terrain was and still is usual practice in Finnish military. Basicly..every square km of Finnish soil is already presurveyed for artillery use, mainly by registering height differences. That is no big military secret...and useful also to road and bridge builders .

You know, only so called "stategic strike/operation" made by STAVKA that failed to achieve it's goals was operation against Finland in 1944. Stopping those who later smashed Germans in Operation Bagration was no small feat. Either we were superhumans (flattering, but I doubt) or our tactics and doctrine were sound and effective. Either that or Russians were really incompetent...which I and lot of others (especially Russians) would disagree strongly. In Summer 1944 they were already starting to surpass the Germans in matters of quality and competence in manpower, tactics and operational skills.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Foxbat:

[qb]I read and I didn't see the magic formula..?

Try harder

The fire control chart, a fire observation instrument introduced in the 1920s, enabled the quick transfer of fire (i.e. fast switching of targets) ....... The new benefits of the new firing chart was numerous.

Bells and whistles imho, I also think that similar systems were worked out by most other countries at that time (except possibly by the soviets, and they do get longer FO delays so in game terms this is actually accounted for already).

The topographical preparations depended on the front. There were quite good "1:20 000" maps available from the Isthmus, and from some parts of the Ladoga Karelia, but in the northern parts of Finland, the only maps were "1:400 000" maps. Still, the stockpiled storage of maps, proved out to be way to small, thanks to the shoestring defense budget before the war. There were efforts to compensate this shortage with different types of maps, like making maps of aerial photographs taken in the summer of 1939. The resulting "ik-maps" (the "ik" is an abbreviation of "ilmakuva" which is "aerial photograph" in Finnish) wasn't liked by the artillery.

ik-maps were available on average within 48 hours from the taking of the picture. It would be reasonable to think they flew recce/photo missions to scout and map out the unknown terrain of Soviet East Karelia the troops were advancing into during the attack phase (even before the hostilities started ).

Thes two claims seem to directly contradict each other, there were good maps of the homefront but crappy aerial survey maps sometimes had to use don't combine into: aerial survey should be so good that artillery can essentialy function as if they were on homeground.

I also wonder how effective artillry was during the attack considering it neccesarily followed the infantry and couldn't be pre-deployed.

I also think that the claim that the Finns always immediatly had great maps of any area they were advancing towards is a bit optimistic.

Also, this implies the Germans were not perhaps given the accurate Finnish maps when they were preparing the failed assault on Murmansk.

Or maybe the soviets conducted a reasonably lead and rather tenacious defense (knowing that a success in this area would sever one of the lifelines of the Rodina) in extreme climatic circumstances? Naah, it must have been the lack of finnish maps (aside: the Finns had maps of Murmansk? I thought the lack of decent maps in the northern combat zone was lamented even when the Finns fought on their own soil..).

Firing methods.....Take a look at the different target types and areas. The arty shell fall pattern model in CMXX is nowhere near any of them.

But that's the same for every nation, it's just an abstraction we'll have to live with.

Unit of fire

In CMBB you do not get the 400 75-76mm shells for a battery. Let alone the required amount of shells for the entire battalion.

That's because at CMBB scale you aren't the division/army commander, I don't think in FO would be allowed to fire an entire battalions worth of ammo on a tactical objective. Besides, spare athough for neighbouring units who will be stuck without artillery support if you hog it all.

And to make matters worse, the troops in many places ran out of cables, forcing to use iron wire, which wasn't nearly as good as cable had been.And they say the Americans were the masters of improvisation.

The Finns turned to the most obvious solution and that makes them "masters of improvisation", I've read about at least one acount of a russian using barbed wire (presumably straight wire and not the coiled stuff) to fix a land line, and they say Finns are masters of improvisation

But that is the key !!! It is not enough to know your enemy. If you have your topographical data down you can use the full spectrum and the full potential of your arsenal to outfight the enemy.

Uhm, yeah.

Who said "nothing in common".

You did : "The Finnish arty doctrine was quite unique.

You can NOT apply your knowledge of German, Soviet, British and American arty doctrine to the Finnish arty. There are some universal things like ballistics and meteorological stuff but that is the extent of the similarities."

The problem is that since most of the procedures are still semi-classified (they are still taught in the army as a back up for the high-tech systems) there is really no concise data on them, let alone in English.

You'd think that by this time other armies would have caught up with what the Finns invented 60-80 years ago, obviating the need for a classified status.

[ October 17, 2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

You'd think that by this time other armies would have caught up with what the Finns invented 60-80 years ago, obviating the need for a classified status.

You'd be surprised what stuff some people in FDF classify I once got a manual that was a copy of publicly available book and of course...it was stamped with "confidential" .

Cheers,

M.S.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Okay, now lemme get this straight. Finnish books are always right, Western books (is Finland near China), are always wrong.

Nope. They are not wrong when it comes to the events and stuff from their own sphere. When it comes to stuff out of that sphere they are inaccurate at best.

And Anglo-Americans are not alone in the Western hemisphere. The German sources fter WWII pertaining Finland were filled with sour grapes and luckily over the years the Anglo-Americans have used them to fill in the gaps. Now that the Russian archives are starting to open they are sure to get a second opinion. I just wonder why they are not using the Finnish archives when speaking about things pertaining Finland.

Glanz's book from year 2000 on the siege of Leningrad (which BTW used 0 Finnish sources) stated the Red Army lost nearly 50 000 men during Winter War. In the same book he quotes Krivosheev who has concluded the correct number is closer to 130 000. In the same book there is not even a footnote to reveal the Soviet Finnish border was close to the city. And Glantz is supposed to be the crem-de-la-crem in matters of Red Army during WWII in the West.

On a previous arty debate somebody mentioned Hoggs book on arty in WWII (which I have yet to procure). Apparently on that occasion the deciding factor was the amount of pages a nation gets in the book. Finland did not get many pages where as the big ones got pages upon pages of data. I doubt all the 60-odd makes and models (Soviet, British, American, German, Swedish, domestic etc) the Finnish arty used got mentioned in that book. And I am sure there was nothing about the correction-rectifier (korjausmuunnin, my translation) device which made it possible for the Finnish army to have multiple battalions fire TOT missions on point targets under one FO's command quite sometime before the Americans were able to do that.

[Juha Ahoniemi]

You'd think that by this time other armies would have caught up with what the Finns invented 60-80 years ago, obviating the need for a classified status.

Yep, all safes had to be opened for the allied (=in this case, Russians) according the peace treaty.

Unfortunately I don't have pictures about "korjausmuunnin" placed in artillery museum of Hämeenlinna http://www.hameenlinna.fi/artillery/

But there is one for You to see. Seeing where this conversation is going to, maybe I have to go there to take some pictures.

-Juha

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Remember the germans have their mythical skills in panzercraft, it would be nice if one tank in each company was made elite regardless of force composition.

Apples and oranges.

The armour is easy to model as it is pure physics: MV, facehardened steel quality, all the nicely quantifiable and easily accessible mechanical stuff. You can be as good (or as bad) as you want since it is the pure tactical manouvering that decides if the performance of the vehicle is historically feasible (ie. use the Tiger as you would use a Hellcat and see what happens).

Obviously the germans were able to win a lot of engagements even though there "mechanical stuff" wasn't neccesarily superior. But a more valid point is that the way you use your artillery decides if the performance is hiostorically feasible, for example if you play the Finns you should buy TRP's and make an effort to concentrate your artillery fire in one place at a time.

With artillery it is totally different. It is all about procedure, working out the solutions and doing the pre-fire mission preparations. All these are outside the players control.

Just like everything else that happens at a higher command level, like for example the gathering of forces before an offensive, etc.

Or what about the russian artillery practices? Why don't they get big discounts on heavy arty post-43.

The cost of the arty as a weapons system is not the issue here. The issue is how well the different arty practises of the different armies are modelled when the different delays are worked out .

But the cost is one of the game implications of how arty practices are moddeled, you can't claim that Finns should get practically free TRP's and then dismiss the idea that it is about cost out of hand. The russians made a concentrated effort to ensure that when heavy artillery was available there was lots of it, so shouldn't the game make it easier for them to buy heavy (ie prep) artillery in bulk?

And let's not even get started on their deep battle operations, if they're attacking anywhere after 43 they're going to have a massive troop density on the axis of attack, force ratio for russian attackers should be 3:1 and 5:1 in assault (and they would need it to when the finns get free TRP's in any engagements :eek: ).

Please do a 1000pts Allied assault in the summer of 1944 and see how much more the Soviets get infantry compared to the Germans or the Finns.

If you think that is enough you should read this: How to attack like a Soviet Rifle Corps in 1944

Furthermore there are other contributing factors that affect the use of artillery, like:

http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/intel/

This isn't modeled for anyone (if anything the russians should get some 0berpowers in this area because of their great tactical intelligence) so I don't see how it is relevant for the Finns specifically.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

And Glantz is supposed to be the crem-de-la-crem in matters of Red Army during WWII in the West.

Glantz always gets bashed by everyone for not representing there country well enough [his representation of the US is particularly bad]. But seriously do you expect one guy to dissect both all russian and finnish sources? He has taken upon himself the gargantuan task of opening up the russian sources, and has made efforts to use genuine original sources rather than soviet historiography.

[ October 17, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Juha Ahoniemi:

maybe I have to go there to take some pictures.

That would be great.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

What some people do not understand is that "magical" achievements in Winter War and Continuation war were not caused by some superhuman feats. What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability.

So shouldn't that be the same in the game? Rather than relying on 0bertanks, 0bertillery and 0bertoothpicks the Finnish players should use what is at hand to best effect. The "historical realism" clamoured for by some seems to lead to a situation where every situation defaults to a Finnish victory.

I don't understand what is the beef about including tanks that were used historically, given the rarity rules. If it was used, it's OK. I doubt that anyone would buy +900 % rarity KV-1s in QB as Finn .

Since I proposed that in this thread I can't complain, but I think the issue is

1) The Finns on this forum always seem to be clamoring for unique vehicles being included, because "the army had one of them, representing 15% of the armoured force", "it was used against enemy infantry in at least one engagement", hey there are Sturmtigers, why can't we have T-50s :mad: "

2) These vehicles represent unique items and so aren't really representative of anything.

You know, only so called "stategic strike/operation" made by STAVKA that failed to achieve it's goals was operation against Finland in 1944.

So what were STAVKA's goals? Knocking Finland out of the war, undermining the situation of army group north and reaquiring the territory lost to Finland (part of the Ishtmus, Penchanga, some land above Leningrad) [sorry couldn't resist ]

Either we were superhumans (flattering, but I doubt) or our tactics and doctrine were sound and effective.

Good on you, but how much is that in game terms?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability.

Which were BTW not drastically changed between 1939 and 1944. Some fine tuning was done but the basics remained the same.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Which were BTW not drastically changed between 1939 and 1944. Some fine tuning was done but the basics remained the same.

Other than three years in static positions spent stockpiling, mapping and fortifying

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Other than three years in static positions spent stockpiling, mapping and fortifying

Since the tactics and doctrine were so damned good the time was spent stockpiling, doing chores, mapping and on farming holidays back home. Fortifying was for sissies. (NOT sissis )

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Since the tactics and doctrine were so damned good the time was spent stockpiling, doing chores, mapping and on farming holidays back home. Fortifying was for sissies. (NOT sissis )

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

What some people do not understand is that "magical" achievements in Winter War and Continuation war were not caused by some superhuman feats. What caused those were sound tactical and doctrinal practices employing usually inferior equipment to it's fullest capability.

So shouldn't that be the same in the game? Rather than relying on 0bertanks, 0bertillery and 0bertoothpicks the Finnish players should use what is at hand to best effect. The "historical realism" clamoured for by some seems to lead to a situation where every situation defaults to a Finnish victory.

I don't understand what is the beef about including tanks that were used historically, given the rarity rules. If it was used, it's OK. I doubt that anyone would buy +900 % rarity KV-1s in QB as Finn .

Since I proposed that in this thread I can't complain, but I think the issue is

1) The Finns on this forum always seem to be clamoring for unique vehicles being included, because "the army had one of them, representing 15% of the armoured force", "it was used against enemy infantry in at least one engagement", hey there are Sturmtigers, why can't we have T-50s :mad: "

2) These vehicles represent unique items and so aren't really representative of anything.

You know, only so called "stategic strike/operation" made by STAVKA that failed to achieve it's goals was operation against Finland in 1944.

So what were STAVKA's goals? Knocking Finland out of the war, undermining the situation of army group north and reaquiring the territory lost to Finland (part of the Ishtmus, Penchanga, some land above Leningrad) [sorry couldn't resist ]

Either we were superhumans (flattering, but I doubt) or our tactics and doctrine were sound and effective.

Good on you, but how much is that in game terms? </font>

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Fortyifing ceratinly didn't do the germans in the north any good, so I guess the Finns had a point in taking it easy

That didn't do much good for us either. Afterwards units and army generally was critisized for not fortifying enough and concentrating to irrelevant things during static period of 1942-44. 3 defence lines, Front line was adequate, VT-line was half-finished and VKT-line was mostly just line on map.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Bruno Weiss]

tero wrote:

Nope. They are not wrong when it comes to the events and stuff from their own sphere. When it comes to stuff out of that sphere they are inaccurate at best.

Oh, okay now, I'm starting to get this. So Finnish books are always right when discussing Finland, and always wrong when discussing something other than Finland. And then it follows that conversely Western books (I swear I thought Finland was located somewhere in the Western Hemisphere), are always right when discussing Western things, and ofcourse always wrong when discussing Finland.

Now seems to me the trick here, is to decipher when a book is crossing the line and discussing something other then that which is truth. So when these Finnish books are discussing the war, are they discussing anything about something other than Finland? Or do Finnish books only discuss Finland?

This is all so confusing... :confused:

[Foxbat]

Ok Here is a description of the battle for the Is

Soviet attack on Karelian Isthmus, from a Finnish website so that should vouch for it's accuracy:

Large scale attack by Soviet 21st Army began on Karelian Isthmus on 9 June 1944. The attack breached the Finnish defence in Valkeasaari on 10 June.

Soviet troops advanced rapidly and Finnish troops had to retreat to second defence line VT-line from Vammelsuu to Taipale on 12th. This line was 10-20 km behind the frontline.

VT- line was broken at Kuuterselkä on 14th. Counterattack in Kuuterselkä by the Finnish armored division failed, and the defenders had to be pulled back again. On 17 June order was given to retreat to the third defence line on Karelian Isthmus, VKT-line from Viipuri to Kuparsaari and to Taipale. Viipuri was lost after a short battle on 20 June, but Soviet troops could not advance further west in this sector during the rest of the war. They managed to cross the bridges, but rapid artillery commands crushed the bridgehead and defenders gained few hours time to reorganize.

This was enough and Soviet troops were halted in this sector till the end of the war. The next attack was then directed northeast from Viipuri to the Tali-Ihantala area.

So in effect 0berartillery would make stopping the Red Army beyond Vyborg possible, at the expense of historic realism (and playability) in any other battle in the area... I guess the best solution would be to represent this situations through scenarios rather than giving the Finns massive advantadges in the game mechanics

[ October 17, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Bruno,

I think the main problem is the one-sided language barrier. Many Finns can read the languages of the bigger participants of the war. So it's not a problem for them to use English/American/German/Soviet sources. But there are not many foreign historians who can read Finnish. So I would guess it's a lot easier for the Finns to form an objective picture of the foreign fronts than it's to the foreigners of the Finnish front.

Did that make any sense?

Ari

[Panzerjaeger]

It has been funny reading your "battle of wits". I'll have to say that most people should keep their mouths shut when discussing about a computer game. I'll say that again. A COMPUTER GAME!

It has nothing to do with what are Finns like, or which country is the most sly...

As you were.

[Bruno Weiss]

Ari wrote:

Did that make any sense?

No.

If no one reads Finnish, why do they keep writing it?

[ October 17, 2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Wehr]

What's all this arguing about exactly? I got the answer to my question on the first page....lol.

The finns are cool guys. Not many countries in the world could accomplish what they did in the winter war.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Wehr:

What's all this arguing about exactly? I got the answer to my question on the first page....lol.

Whether or not Finns should get 0bertillery

Ok, so obviously your thread was hijacked and used for a general discussion on all things Finnish. I hope you don't mind.

[ October 17, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

That didn't do much good for us either. Afterwards units and army generally was critisized for not fortifying enough and concentrating to irrelevant things during static period of 1942-44. 3 defence lines, Front line was adequate, VT-line was half-finished and VKT-line was mostly just line on map.

Cheers,

M.S.

I guess that confirms the rule of thumb that static defence lines are either undermanned, unfinished and generally both.

Because erecting fortifications requires a lot of manpower and equipment better used elsewhere and therefore there is generally little urgency until an attack is immenent (by which time it is generally too late), same for the units supposed to occupy the defenses.

Static fortifications are also a great way to tie down the defenders in an easily identifiable place

[ October 17, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

It has been funny reading your "battle of wits". I'll have to say that most people should keep their mouths shut when discussing about a computer game. I'll say that again. A COMPUTER GAME!

Considering that this particular computer game has some pretence of historical accuracy I don't see why historical information shouldn't be discussed as a reason to ammend (or not) the game.

Besides I learned a lot about finnish artillery that I didn't know before, so I guess there is some use to such discussion