Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[Ligur]

I'm scared.

[JonS]

Tero,

the things you claim for the Finnish Artillery - quick response, large concentrations, massive firepower, extensive use of pre-plotted targets, wide-ranging FOs, good-to-excellent communications, variety of distributions, etc. - can legitimately all be claimed for the RA, particularly from mid-'43ish, and the American artillery from a bit later. None of it is unique to the Finnish Artillery.

Note; I am not saying that these things shouldn't be represented in the game. In fact, I've been angling for a better artillery model in CM since ... um ... 1999 I think. However, saying that the überFinns were the only ones that managed to figure this stuff out, and that not including it in CM for them (and them alone) shows some kind of bias, is wrongheaded on your part.

Be proud of your nations military heritage (and there is much to be proud of), but don't lose perspective over it.

Regards

JonS

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by 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:

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

[Bruno Weiss]

No, it's too late for that. I'm afraid we've been found out. Alas, as hard as we tried all the way back to 1944, to supress the truth about Finnish invincibility and their humility in not taking over the world with vastly superior forces, it has all been in vain. They know now. They've found us out. I'm afraid that CMBB was the final straw. Everything was fine until the mechanics of the truth were put to the test. Let's just admit it, it was actually Finnish artillery that defeated Godzilla.

[Michael Dorosh]

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!

.

The same advice applies to people who find themselves in the midst of an intellectual debate, but also find themselves ill-equipped to participate.

I second Jon's comments on the RA (don't forget the RHA, RCA, and RCHA! )

[Michael Dorosh]

[ October 17, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...(don't forget the RHA, RCA, and RCHA! )

Yeah, yeah, and the HAC, NZA, the RAA, RIA, etc, etc. Since they all sang to the same hymn book* (eventually) I was using the RA as a stand in for them all.

Regards

JonS

* Well, sort of. Was reading the NZ Official History for Artillery. 2(NZ)Div worked closely with the Canuckians for a few months in Italy, and commented on the difference in the way they used their artllery. Same words and procedures, different application and effects on the ground. interesting.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

Also I know BTS is not in the habit of giving national discounts on anything, so other possibility is to do something about delays, especially after the "korjausmuunnin" was invented.

I personally don't see any objections against giving FO's a "fire-corrector" attribute and shorter delays, much like other units can have good optics, high HE, highly flammable, and whatnot as attributes.

Provided of course that some more info about the Korjausmuunnin surfaces and it can be coded into the game engine, and BTS can be sold on this.

With regard to that last point I think that we're currently looking at a big black hole, we have basic info on finnish artillery practices but very little on the "Korja" and how (and how much)it was used. And very little info on artillery practices of other countries to provide the neccesary contrast.

[Foxbat]

Russian artillery practice during the Winter War: Mikhail Lukinov, Signaller and Battery commander in a regimental artillery unit.

"Combat was conducted primarily during the day. Everything grew still toward the night, and signalers' work began. Under the cover of darkness, we had to roll up old wires, provide communications to the new artillery positions by connecting them to observation posts, connect to the regiment HQ and the artillery chief. Everything had to be ready by morning. The night was sleepless during such work, and combat began in the morning, so how could you sleep when the communications got interrupted here and there?"

Evgenii Monyushko, platoon commander in an ATGun unit.

Brought to you by The Russian Battlefield.

"The presence of my PNP in the infantry combat formations was basically a formality. I couldn't direct the battery's fire myself because I didn't have a map and didn't know the coordinates of the firing positions. But, of course, thanks to the presence of communications, I could always report the situation to the battery commander, call for fire, even communicate with the entire artillery battalion. I could also correct the fire, but only through the battery commander, transmitting the deviation of explosions from the target in meters and directions. The battery commander was supposed to convert them to the required settings for the guns. The main thing was that the artillery men were next to infantry, as required by the field manual."

[ October 17, 2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Keke]

I´ll keep this sort because it´s so damn late, and I should be sleeping.

All the deficiencies in Finnish TO&E mentioned previously should be corrected to allow historically detailed scenarios possible. I´m struggling with my scenario designing because of these deficiencies.

It´s about time a wargame models Finnish fast-response artillery. During WWII only American artillery was as fast and efficient (TOT-system).

BTW, it doesn´t seem to be a well-known fact that Germans learned proper use of mortars in forests from Finns. Americans experienced this doctrine in the battles of Hürtgen Forest.

[ October 18, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Oh Keke is right. Any confirmed errors or misrepresentations in the Finnish force TO&E should be corrected.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Keke:

...It´s about time a wargame models Finnish fast-response artillery. During WWII only American artillery was as fast and efficient (TOT-system). ...

Keke, as for Tero. This just isn't true.

[manchildstein (ii)]

in sqad leader the field phones were better than the radios... maybe that's all they need to fix for cmbb...

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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

Getting one with the original topic:

The Finnish 75mm AT model 98/38 is shown having AP shots. The use of AP shots for that particular model was prohibited because of the violent recoil could damage the undercarriage. HEAT was the only AT munition that was allowed to be used.

In the interest of historical accuracy the AP shots for this model should be taken out.

[ October 18, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

So Finnish books are always right when discussing Finland, and always wrong when discussing something other than Finland.

Yep, that would be right. Finnish books are right to say their arty was very good and use of firepower efficient and responsive. Since they fought the Russians they might be in a position to say, we think our arty usage was more efficient than theirs. But they couldn't be absolutely sure about that because they don't seem to have done any kind of comparative analysis of organisational and communications structures. They might also be able to comment upon the Germans and their arty practices since they had an opportunity to observe them fairly closely.

However, when it comes to the practices of any other nation they don't have a clue and flounder around in a morass of ignorance and chest beating fuelled no doubt by whatever throat searing concoction they guzzle down over there. Most people in such a situation would reserve their judgment based upon lack of knowledge but not this lot, they just go ahead and proclaim the "uberness" over the entire rest of the planet based upon the fact they managed to give one of the participants of WWII a bloody nose on a few occasions. It's bad enough that we have to put up with the Seppos blowing their own trumpets, now CMBB has unleashed the Finns, not that they weren't a bit feral beforehand. Our lot kicked the arses of the Italians, Germans, Austrians, French and Japanese in WWII without the benefit of discount rate TRPs and there's no wood to make toothpicks in the desert so we had to make do with grains of sand. So there!

Basis for comparison =1 does not make an argument for uberness.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

But they couldn't be absolutely sure about that because they don't seem to have done any kind of comparative analysis of organisational and communications structures.

The analysis were done alright. But who decides whos systems was better, the Red Army's or the Finnish army's ? The Red Army system was built to respond to the needs of their MO, the Finnish army system was built to respond to the needs of our MO. Just like the systems of every other army was built to respond to the need of their respective armies.

The fact still remains the systems were distinct and different.

The main gripe here is the German FO with a radio in Finnish sector gets his barrage with a 1 min delay while the Finnish FO with a land line gets his with a 6 min delay. The problem is the delays should be reversed because the basic differences in the procedures and level of preparedness which has nothing to do with the fact the other is carryin a radio and the other is hauling a land line.

They might also be able to comment upon the Germans and their arty practices since they had an opportunity to observe them fairly closely.

Yes. But that also entails the comments are relevant in the terrain on the Finnish sector.

However, when it comes to the practices of any other nation they don't have a clue and flounder around in a morass of ignorance and chest beating fuelled no doubt by whatever throat searing concoction they guzzle down over there.

You forget the fact the mightiest force in WWII got denied twice by this ignorant, chest beating fuelled no doubt by whatever throat searing concoction we guzzle down over here.

Most people in such a situation would reserve their judgment based upon lack of knowledge but not this lot, they just go ahead and proclaim the "uberness" over the entire rest of the planet based upon the fact they managed to give one of the participants of WWII a bloody nose on a few occasions.

Hmmmm.... the Germans tackeled this same participant (of their own volition) and they got mangeled and dismembered for their efforts.

Our lot kicked the arses of the Italians, Germans, Austrians, French and Japanese in WWII without the benefit of discount rate TRPs and there's no wood to make toothpicks in the desert so we had to make do with grains of sand. So there!

And our lot kicked the arse of the Red Army. Twice. With only the fraction of the resources available to your lot. Without the benefit of discount rate stabilizers and there were no resources to build "proper" VT fuses so we used the regular ones instead.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Provided of course that some more info about the Korjausmuunnin surfaces

You'd think there were some pictures of it around without someone having to go to the museum to actually take one a post it on the net, wouldn't you ?

and it can be coded into the game engine,

A few guys with a slide ruler, a map and some paper came up with it. How hard can it be ?

and BTS can be sold on this.

Pandemonium !!!!

And very little info on artillery practices of other countries to provide the neccesary contrast.

Oh ? I have always been under the impression the slideruler approach of the US Army was the high mark in ingenuity in this field....

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

* Well, sort of. Was reading the NZ Official History for Artillery. 2(NZ)Div worked closely with the Canuckians for a few months in Italy, and commented on the difference in the way they used their artllery. Same words and procedures, different application and effects on the ground. interesting.

I hope you see the light now.

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by tero:

The Finnish 75mm AT model 98/38 is shown having AP shots. The use of AP shots for that particular model was prohibited because of the violent recoil could damage the undercarriage. HEAT was the only AT munition that was allowed to be used.

In the interest of historical accuracy the AP shots for this model should be taken out.

From "Marskin Panssarintuhoojat" I got the idea the guns still had AP, even if its use was prohibited. The author seemed to doubt the order was strictly followed, given the better performance of AP shots.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

the things you claim for the Finnish Artillery - quick response,

Check

large concentrations, massive firepower,

Not forgetting tight concentration of fire power on point targets even with smaller forces. The resources had to mastered and the FP was not wasted away in wide area targets needlessly.

BTW: Gen. Ehrnroth has said the task of the Finnish infantry in defence was to pin down the enemy force so it could be hammered with accurate, heavy, observed artillery fire.

extensive use of pre-plotted targets,

That is the tricky part. As described previously the pre-plotting was not done only to plot the targets, it was done also to plot the arty positions. That way any potential target point on the map could be engaged with less delay than would have been possible if only the targets had been plotted.

wide-ranging FOs,

Not sure what you mean by this.

good-to-excellent communications,

The Achilles heel.

Then again there were times when the batteries engaged targets on their own, if they had no FO on the line, based on the sounds of the firing. Don't rightly know if the other armies did that at all.

variety of distributions,

That I know is not unique. But I do not know if a converging sheaf for RA for example targeted a 100m by 100m area.

particularly from mid-'43ish, and the American artillery from a bit later. None of it is unique to the Finnish Artillery.

True. But the arty procedures in 1939 were pretty much the same as they were in 1944. The only significant changes were the increased volume of fire and the introduction of the korjausmuunnin in 1943 which made it possible to mass even more guns under just one FO on a single point target.

Note; I am not saying that these things shouldn't be represented in the game. In fact, I've been angling for a better artillery model in CM since ... um ... 1999 I think.

I hear you, brother.

However, saying that the überFinns were the only ones that managed to figure this stuff out, and that not including it in CM for them (and them alone) shows some kind of bias, is wrongheaded on your part.

Be proud of your nations military heritage (and there is much to be proud of), but don't lose perspective over it.

The überFinn theory is not of our making.

All this is directed at the excessive delays given to the Finnish FO's compared to the rest of them.

Since at the moment the only deciding factor is the presence or absence of the radio our (well, at least my ) take is to prove the point that even though the Finnish arty relied on the land lines the delays of the Finnish arty now in the game are being missrepresented in the game now.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

From "Marskin Panssarintuhoojat" I got the idea the guns still had AP, even if its use was prohibited. The author seemed to doubt the order was strictly followed, given the better performance of AP shots.

I'll have to read it again with a magnifying glass when I get home.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

You'd think there were some pictures of it around without someone having to go to the museum to actually take one a post it on the net, wouldn't you ?

I did, and I searched for it. But I came up empty-handed, now there is a good chance that it I missed out on some of the finnish language sources..

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

extensive use of pre-plotted targets,

That is the tricky part. As described previously the pre-plotting was not done only to plot the targets, it was done also to plot the arty positions. That way any potential target point on the map could be engaged with less delay than would have been possible if only the targets had been plotted.

I'm pretty sure that that was the SOP in every army by this time.

True. But the arty procedures in 1939 were pretty much the same as they were in 1944. The only significant changes were the increased volume of fire and the introduction of the korjausmuunnin in 1943 which made it possible to mass even more guns under just one FO on a single point target.

From the winter war site: "The low number of artillery pieces and units led to a point, where the artillery couldn't be used as should have been used according to the artillery regulations.

[..]

Strict orders were given about the shell consumption, and the priority was given to barrages, or blocking fire, over counterbattery fire and counter-preparation fire, which had higher priorities in the 1936 artillery regulations. The appalling shell situation forced the artillery to conserve, and the shell amounts of different forms of fire, set by the regulations, remained throughout the war only a fraction from the "official" demands."

Having these tactics and using them are two utterly different things, also it is obvious that these procedures were next to effectless on the attack when not all the requirments for succesfull use could be fullfilled.

All this is directed at the excessive delays given to the Finnish FO's compared to the rest of them.

But is this really as bad as you claim? ie do Finnish FO's regularly have six times the delay of other (german) FO's when executing similar fire missions?

[Keke]

Originally posted by tero:

The main gripe here is the German FO with a radio in Finnish sector gets his barrage with a 1 min delay while the Finnish FO with a land line gets his with a 6 min delay. The problem is the delays should be reversed because the basic differences in the procedures and level of preparedness which has nothing to do with the fact the other is carryin a radio and the other is hauling a land line.

Hear, Hear!

[Juha Ahoniemi]

A Finnish task force will be launched to Artillery museum of Hämeenlinna at saturday (tomorrow). Pictures of "korjausmuunnin" will be available some time after that for everyone to see. Maybe the grogs can then identify the system and tell if there has been similar ones in other armies, and if so, since when.

-Juha

[ October 18, 2002, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Juha Ahoniemi ]