Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[Foxbat]

We've all seen the winter war site on Finnish artillery practices, so here is the soviet equivalent (as posted by BTS on this forum ):

Big Time Software posted January 02, 2002 11:39 PM

Soviet artillery fire missions can be summed up broadly as such:

1. Operational - preplanned fire missions which were designed to impact enemy forces with maximum shock and destruction in order to achieve a very specific and significant (in scope) goal. This was done by bringing the biggest guns in the largest numbers possible to bear on the target in the shortest period of time.

On the assault it was to demolish known fortified positions and disrupt lines of communication. On the defensive it was to smash assembly areas during an attack or generally cause casualties in anticipation of future action.

These types of attacks were generally planned well in advance and were highly inflexible once the plan was finalized. Such attacks could last for hours without letup. Obviously this type of Artillery attack is outside of CM's scope since there would be no point in playing out such a scenario (don't believe me? Go into the editor and give the Allies a huge number of FOs and let them have at a typical defending German force )

Large assets found only in dedicated artillery units would be assigned in significant numbers. Lower level artillery would also take part to satisfy more local goals in accordance with the larger Operational goal.

2. Tactical, Defensive - When time and resources allowed, the defending Soviet forces would document the terrain and enemy positions in front of it to be used for fire missions.

Specific artillery resources would be allocated to the sector and would be assigned to whatever missions were developed. Generally this would be along the lines of zeroing in on possible assembly areas, roads, artillery positions, fortifications, etc. When conditions were met, such as an enemy force gathering in a suspected assembly area, the commander (generally Battalion I think) would call for the preplanned fire mission to be executed according to plan.

Generally only those assets which were organic to the particular formation would be available. However, additional assets (heavier or not) could also be assigned in unusual circumstances. While the missions could be executed on the fly, they were largely inflexible in terms of what guns were available for action. For example, if the sector was not assigned much artillery it couldn't quickly aquire more support in the event something unexpected happened.

3. Tactical, Offensive - organic and assigned artillery was used to neutralize enemy resistance imediately in front of the attacking units. Sometimes this was done in conjunction with Operational fire, but it could be done on the fly during or after a breakthrough. However, it was generally done with direct fire from Self Propelled guns and light artillery (guns and mortars). When time or coordination permitted, indirect fire could be arranged for as well. But this was generally only possible after the front stabilized to some degree.

Hopefully my definitions jibe with what others here know. Now... on to the implications of this in CM.

There are three primary concerns in CMBB that must be dealt with:

1. Availability - what the chances of a low level unit, such as a Battalion, would have certain assets at its disposal in the first place. The bigger the asset, the less the chance. Going along with the course of the war bigger became more common, but only significantly so in the final phase of the war (i.e. post Bagration).

2. Employment - what type of restrictions/limitations did doctrine, C&C, or otherwise impose on artillery use. The circumstances of use are critical in determining how much these restrictions/limitations imposed on practical issues critical to a low level simulation like CM.

3. Delays - sorta tied in with the above, but since this is the key factor being discussed here I thought I would give it its own place in the spotlight Escentially, given everything above... how long would it take x piece of artillery from y formation to fire on z location in a given situation.

While I do not suppose CMBB's system is perfect, I do suggest that it can adequately simulate the reality of Soviet artillery use during the course of the war.

Availability of a particular type of artillery is largely a function of battle size, battle type, and Rarity (if played with). Don't expect to get guns greater than 122mm in a 500 point QB Meeting Engagement in 1942 for example!

Employment is partially taken care of by the above, but not entirely. So there are other things for the Soviet player (or any other for that matter!) to deal with, such as wire or radio based FOs, location of FOs, etc. While our simulation of wire based FOs is far from perfect, it basically does what it needs to do. You can't run wire based FOs around the map willy nilly like radio ones. We have also reduced the speed of radio based FOs as well, so that should be an unpleasent shocker to some

Now on to delay times...

Delay times are based on the level of attachment. While it is true, to some extent, that a FO is a FO is a FO... and therefore call times should not be significantly different. However, because different types of artillery were utilized in different ways, CM must have a way to realistically curtail unrealistic use of assets in roles they were not designed to be used for.

Basically, this amounts to a rather simple artillery system:

1. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be seen on the battlefield to begin with.

2. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be usefull during the course of the battle, due to delays, unless it is fired either on Turn 1 (prepatory bombardment) or at a TRP (preplanned fire mission). In other words, the more the player deviates from standard Soviet artillery practices... the more he will have to pay for it in terms of C&C delays.

3. Since FOs are generally connected by wire and not radio (even as late as 1945), further restrictions are natural in terms of flexible utilization of FOs.

The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything.

Sheesh... what a long post Well, basically that is it. We think we have a system which, although not perfect, adequately reflects the reality of Soviet artillery use in WWII during the different phases of the conflict. I'll attempt to answer a few follow ups as I am sure there will be some!

Steve

The important bits for the current discussion are:

Al lot of noise has been made about the finnish using extensive pre-regestering of terrain, but this was apparently not restricted to Finnish practice

"When time and resources allowed, the defending Soviet forces would document the terrain and enemy positions in front of it to be used for fire missions."

The alleged undermoddeling of "wired" FO's.

"While our simulation of wire based FOs is far from perfect, it basically does what it needs to do. You can't run wire based FOs around the map willy nilly like radio ones."

I guess it's not as bad as some would have us believe

Also note that "[..] 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same.".

And as Finns have mostly light-medium arty (light artillery made up between 50-66% of the total indirect fire capable artillery throughout the "continuation war") and generally organised as lower levels (I think) then their russian counterparts they should be inherently more flexible, without any need to tweak or 0ber them.

[ October 18, 2002, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

[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."

This was the problem during the Winter War only. It can be modelled with limited artillery pieces for Finns in Winter War scenarios.

[Jarmo]

Oh, an IMPORTANT thing came to mind when thinking of the book. Probably not just about the finns either.

Unlimber times.

During the attack phase, -41, the finns used the german 37mm AT guns in attack, by pushing them ahead on the road. When a target was spotted, it was SOP to engage it immediately, the gun would stay on the road for the duration of engagement.

According to the same "Marskin Panssarintuhoojat" book, the first aimed shot would be fired in 10 seconds!

That's 10 seconds to first shot from stopping the movement. Standard procedure, speed which any trained crew could achieve. Not a single isolated insidence. In CM there's a 1 minute unlimber time, making the advance much harder.

Now, I remember something of other countries doing the same thing, so this is not plain überfinn propaganda.

Either making some guns able to fire unlimbered, or dramatically shortening the time for small guns would be a good thing, IMO.

[Keke]

FYI, Finnish FOs used radio (8kg monster) as a backup device during the Continuation War.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Keke:

This was the problem during the Winter War only. It can be modelled with limited artillery pieces for Finns in Winter War scenarios.

The point is that it undermines claims that whatever advantadge the Finns should get in the game should apply from 39 on.

[ October 18, 2002, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by tero:

And our lot kicked the arse of the Red Army. Twice.

Oh, I was under the impression that you had to surrender some land and ask for an armstice, twice....

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

Unlimber times.

According to the same "Marskin Panssarintuhoojat" book, the first aimed shot would be fired in 10 seconds!

That's 10 seconds to first shot from stopping the movement. Standard procedure, speed which any trained crew could achieve. Not a single isolated insidence. In CM there's a 1 minute unlimber time, making the advance much harder.

Now, I remember something of other countries doing the same thing, so this is not plain überfinn propaganda.

Either making some guns able to fire unlimbered, or dramatically shortening the time for small guns would be a good thing, IMO.

Interesting.

Perhaps you should start a new thread on this or something. I'm afraid this thread might miss the target audience (I'm afraid it will soon miss any audience.)

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

And our lot kicked the arse of the Red Army. Twice.

Oh, I was under the impression that you had to surrender some land and ask for an armstice, twice....</font>

[Foxbat]

Nabla, you seem to be the person to ask about Finnish TOE. Were there no mortar's in the infantry company? Just glancing through your TOE it seems that mortar support was very light*, was this because the light artillery took over what would in other armies be the function of the mortars. Or am I just overlooking something?

* As far as I can tell 3 mortar platoons per infantry regiment, for a whopping total of 27 mortars per Infantry Division :eek:

[ October 18, 2002, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

No, no, no, no, the soviets were defeated and forced to sign an armistice twice.

It's true you know, after having been defeated on the approach to Helsinki the soviets settled for

'armistice under excessive demands' over the unconditional surrender they had previously demanded.

Hahaha, so thats what u call an victory? Others would have called it a defeat, after all, they were FORCED to sign an armstice. They were FORCED to surrender land.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

By this time you mean 1936 or 1944 ?

And if the exact position of the battery was unknown, the chart made it possible to determine it's exact position with a few ranging shots.

That was already in the 20's (by 1936 anyway), not 1944.

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.

During Winter War. During 1941-44 there were enough guns and ammo to do it right most of the time.

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?

How many "Fast" FO do the Finns get ?

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Hahaha, so thats what u call an victory? Others would have called it a defeat, after all, they were FORCED to sign an armstice. They were FORCED to surrender land.

I suppose that from a finnish perpective not being integrated into the Soviet-Union (like the other baltic states) was quite a victory.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

How many "Fast" FO do the Finns get ?

I'm quite sure that fast in this case refers to walking speed, not the speed with which artillery falls onto the enemy. The german FO's don't get shorter delay on target (if it is indeed shorter) because they don't have to unspool wire, but presumably because they are calling lighter arty, lower level arty, or calling in arty on a known position.

And since finnish (and soviet) artillery practice relied mostly on wire communications the Finns get a lot of slow-FO's.

Hey wait a minute... was your entire case about the finns being disadvantadged in the artillery department based on the fact that they get "slow" FO's.

That means that the misrepresentation of finnish artillery is hereby resolved, as it doesn't actually exist.

Thank you, and goodnight.

[ October 18, 2002, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I suppose that from a finnish perpective not being integrated into the Soviet-Union (like the other baltic states) was quite a victory.

Would have been easier not to attacked Russia in the first place, no? I agree that the finish forces fought hard, but when people start to say that they WON in both the wars...

Only reason Finland wasnt crushed was because the stiff German defence, which meant that Russia needed their forces elsewhere. If not, Finland would have ended up as a Russian province, make no mistake about it.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Hahaha, so thats what u call an victory? Others would have called it a defeat, after all, they were FORCED to sign an armstice. They were FORCED to surrender land.

Hahaha, look what happened in Tallin, Riga, Kaunas, Warsaw, Praha, Budapest, Bucarest and Berlin during 1944-45 and what happened in Helsinki during the same time...

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Just glancing through your TOE it seems that mortar support was very light*, was this because the light artillery took over what would in other armies be the function of the mortars. Or am I just overlooking something?

* As far as I can tell 3 mortar platoons per infantry regiment, for a whopping total of 27 mortars per Infantry Division :eek:

It seems that's the number of 81/82mm mortars in standard TOE. On top of that you get heavy 120mm mortars (3/regiment AFAIK).

If you look at page 28 of the same document, you can see that the total number of 81mm mortars in full strength was something like 800. If you divide those among 18 divisions (16 inf. div. + others), you get 45 mortars per division. Not sure how the rest were distributed. (The document is currently on the light side as far as arty is concerned, but I'm sure someone will provide this detail here in no time.)

[Keke]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

[QB]Would have been easier not to attacked Russia in the first place, no?

Study history, you ignoramus!

Only reason Finland wasnt crushed was because the stiff German defence, which meant that Russia needed their forces elsewhere. If not, Finland would have ended up as a Russian province, make no mistake about it.

Read my lips: Study history, you ignoramus!

[Sardaukar]

Heck, what is wrong about giving Finns fast response artillery ? About everyone else has it, and I'd be hard to convince that we lagged behind when our artillery doctrine was among the cutting edge in world during WW II. None of that is "game killer" though...but artillery was one deciding factor in combat in Finnish front during 1941-44. Especially during summer 1944.

And what the heck is this "überfinn" thing anyway ? Just asking to be treated fairly in game aspects with same equipment as others have and what is historically correct is not imbalancing the game. Getting smashed in CMBB as Finn is as easy as with other nations. Heh, if finnish units are an issue...why not remove all air, artillery and tanks ? Would that satisfy those who want us to fight other hand tied behind back ?

Cheers,

M.S.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Would have been easier not to attacked Russia in the first place, no?

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, not only to reclaim some of the lost territory but with germany romping all over the european superpowers bigger things seemed possible for lil' Finland. There is an interesting article on this that I unfortunatly don't have But I do have the excerpt:

Was There any Threat to Leningrad from the North in 1941? by N I Baryshnikov

Exploring hitherto classified sources, this article provides a fresh examination of the diplomatic and military circumstances surround Finnish participation in Hitler's war against the Soviet Union in 1941. By doing so, it challenges the widely accepted arguments that Finnish partcipation in the war on Germany's side was at best only lukewarm and that Finnish wartime objectives were limited to regaining territories lost by Finland in the 1939-40 Winter War.

I agree that the finish forces fought hard, but when people start to say that they WON in both the wars...

I guess that in a way both sides won (and lost)

Only reason Finland wasnt crushed was because the stiff German defence, which meant that Russia needed their forces elsewhere. If not, Finland would have ended up as a Russian province, make no mistake about it.

Lot's of things played a role, and what (if anything) more the soviets could have achieved if they had unbound hands is a what-if at best. For one thing the western allies weren't to keen on russia usurping Finland, and it is quite likely that if they hadn't succeeded in taking Helsinki on the first go they would have been forced to settle for an armistice.

[Ligur]

I'm at a loss about this überfinn thing too. In the continuation war Finnish arty was faster and better utilized than Russian. Why not model it since the game already has different arty delay times? D'oh.

Finnish victory or loss? What are people ARGUING OVER? Is it so goddamn important to be able to call the war a "loss" or "win" for the Finns. Semantics. The Finns beat back Russia who wanted to invade the country and prance in the streets of Helsinki. They never did. Call it what you want, a win or not.

Even in the case we lost terribly according to Mr. Smartypants I don't mind, I'm ****ing happy we didn't end up like all the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and later the Tzech. We effectively avoided the Eastesrn Block. You wouldn't be blabbering to Nokia phones if Stalin had had his way, damnit.

[ October 18, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Nabla:

It seems that's the number of 81/82mm mortars in standard TOE. On top of that you get heavy 120mm mortars (3/regiment AFAIK).

So the situation is not as bad as I thought, still not a lot considering the number of men in a divsion (not to mention the number of russians that would confront said division

If you look at page 28 of the same document, you can see that the total number of 81mm mortars in full strength was something like 800. If you divide those among 18 divisions (16 inf. div. + others), you get 45 mortars per division. Not sure how the rest were distributed.

To my mind it would make sense to distribute the rest among companies or even platoons for direct fire-support. But that doesn't compute with the triangular formation of the mortar companies :confused:

Still the low numbers of mortars have an interesting gameplay implication, if you wan't to play the Finns right you should buy light arty where you would normally buy mortars. That would also go a long way towards "visualising" finnish artillery practice

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Heck, what is wrong about giving Finns fast response artillery ? About everyone else has it, and I'd be hard to convince that we lagged behind

What is wrong with that is that as far as I can tell the Finns don't lag behind in the game. That impression has apparently come from the classification of spotters as slow (see also this thread Artillery spotters now "slow") which has nothing to do with fast or slow responsiveness.

And what the heck is this "überfinn" thing anyway ? Just asking to be treated fairly in game aspects with same equipment as others have and what is historically correct is not imbalancing the game.

I think this impression is created by certain Finns who ask for 0berness for the Finns in any year, during any kind of operation and regardless of circumstance.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I think this impression is created by certain Finns who ask for 0berness for the Finns in any year, during any kind of operation and regardless of circumstance.

Eh...I doubt that could be modelled in game anyway. And it'll be best solved with different experience levels. What was historical was that Finns were generally better motivated, trained and led than most of their counterparts...but not always. But it's damn hard to model in computer game, especially things that are not measured in millimeters or kilograms or meters/sec.

If Finnish arty would be in par with others, that's OK...but I'm not that interested about artillery issue...it seems to work relatively well even now. I'd just like to see "übervehicles" like T-28 and Komsomolets gun tractor .

Cheers,

M.S.

[ October 18, 2002, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

[Pak_43]

I'm afraid I just can't believe that the Finns were light years ahead of the British in terms of artillery deployment, doctrine and effectiveness... All of the supposed revelations about Finnish arty doctrine seem to be cribbed almost directly from the lesson learned by the British in World War I.. (1920? co-incidence?)

I haven't got my reference handy but I'm pretty sure that the "Classified" fire-control chart mentioned

"The fire control chart was quickly classified, as the fast fire control system was, at the time, ahead of any other system anywhere in the world."

Was a copy or very similar to the system used by the British in World War I...

For an excellent overview of British arty in WWII go to...

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ArtySyst.htm

In particular there is a section called "Mistakes and Errors" which goes into fantastic detail about how the army calculated the error in artillery missions

"The most significant were errors in correction of the moment, the main source was that the meteorological data could be used several hours after being measured. Wind is the main variable because this can change quickly and significantly. Another problem was the method of applying large corrections. Varying propellant temperature from various ways of storing ammunition on gun positions was also significant (TV news films show that this remains a problem in many armies!). Finally the interpretation of air burst ranging results was also a source of error."

All the mapping and fire control charts in the world isn't going to help fix this kind of problem....

One more quote:

"Basic gunnery is much the same in all armies, although the terminology and exact methods vary in detail. However, the British had procedures that gave them the option of trading a bit of accuracy for a faster response so that they could get the first shells bursting on the ground as quickly as possible. Nevertheless the end result was no different to the accuracy of other armies."

I'm afraid I just don't buy the assertion that

"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."

[ October 18, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Pak_43 ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I'm quite sure that fast in this case refers to walking speed, not the speed with which artillery falls onto the enemy.

Nope. There are three classes of FO's in the game: Fast, Medium and Slow.

The german FO's don't get shorter delay on target (if it is indeed shorter) because they don't have to unspool wire, but presumably because they are calling lighter arty, lower level arty, or calling in arty on a known position.

So, due to circumstances beyond our control a German vetean 81mm mortar FO with a radio gets his barrage delivered in (say) 1-2 minutes on any target location on the map whereas a veteran Finnish 81mm mortar FO with a land line gets his in 3-5 minutes.

And since finnish (and soviet) artillery practice relied mostly on wire communications the Finns get a lot of slow-FO's.

AFAIK the movement speed is not what is referred to during purchase when you see the term "slow", "medium" of "fast" next to the FO.

Hey wait a minute... was your entire case about the finns being disadvantadged in the artillery department based on the fact that they get "slow" FO's.

That means that the misrepresentation of finnish artillery is hereby resolved, as it doesn't actually exist.

Nice try....