Missing and incorrect information on Finland

[JR 8]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

[.

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.[/QB]</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Juha,

Seriusly, I hope You don't think that we are ungrateful, that is not the case.

Nope, just Human and Finnish It is normal for Humans to always want more and it is normal for Finns to want more things Finnish. Take a Romanian and you would get the same, but the requests for vehicles/units/dates/etc. would be Romanian in nature. This is in part flattering to us since it means that we got the basics correct and, probably, more correct than any other wargame ever. Although nothing is ever perfect, we are left with a smile when we know we have acheived this much.

And wasn't it supposed to be Your Finnish partners to do all the background checking (for example that StuG thing)?

There is really no fault or blame for anybody. There are far too many details even for a fairly small force like Finland. Some are going to be wrong, left out, or even entered into the game with a typo. The StuG introduction date is a perfect example.

Our Finnish researchers, and our research, did not initially turn up an exact introduction date. We had sometime in 1943. Charles figured that the first of the year was as good a guess as any and put that in. Obviously this was quite wrong So then we did more research and found that September 1943 was technically correct, and that date was entered into the 1.01 patch. But further research (some of which I dug up myself) showed that they weren't actually used until the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. So the date was changed to reflect that.

I have got to say that having done all the research for all the nations except Finland and the Soviet Union (I had a lot of help there from Charles, Valera, and others), the research aspects of CMBB were some of the toughest things to make happen. I spent about 6 months doing nothing but non-Soviet TO&E for example Rarity values and introduction dates were often very hard to find and incomplete. The Finnish data we got was damned good and pretty much entered without much more work being needed. But we still had to make some tough calls.

One of those was Pioneers. We did quite a bit of effort with our primary researcher (Nabla) into this issue. We determined that the Finns utlized small numbers of Pioneers at the front as sort of specialized destruction teams. But they did not generally use Pioneers in larger numbers than this in a CM type engagement. This was half way inbetween Finland's prewar French and wartime German doctrine.

The Finns realized they simply didn't have the manpower and resources to fritter Pioneers away like the Germans and Americans did, for example, so they kept them out of direct combat as much as possible. That resulted in the TO&E you see in the game now. Pioneers are one of the most overused and "gamey" unit picks in CMBO/CMBB so we felt extra need to be restrictive with them.

The above is just an example of how difficult it is to do historical research and simulate the results correctly. And on top of that, having to do this for 7 nations

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JR 8,

Thank you for the great post. Nobody will flame you for that. If they do... I'll track them down and make sure they do not get to order CM3

Steve

[Juha Ahoniemi]

Steve, I must admit that Your knowledge is better about those wars than average Finns! And You are right, all due respect to Tero, his way of...presenting things is quite black and white. Or should I say white and red ?

His knowledge seems to be very broad however, better than mine. Some war era Russian stories say this and some war era Finnish stories say that. I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am currently reading Helge Seppälä's "Suomi hyökkääjänä 1941" (=Finland as an attacker 1941) and I recommend that to anyone with überFinn-complex. There are sharp analysis about which led to continuation war, preparations, political and military issues and so on. There is some strong critique about many militaly decisions during the attack phase of continuatuin war. Some delays, which were totally vain, costed hundreds of men as casualties as Russians had all that extra time to fortify their positions. There are many interesting facts which I haven't read before. Very educational.

But after that I just had to read about the real überFinns, the Knights of Mannerheim Cross. I'm convinced that there actally were 191 überFinns!

-Juha

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You are comparing the wrong things. You should compare wire to wire, radio to radio. Not radio to wire.

Why ? How much faster does a message travel on the air than along the wire to justify the longer delay for wire equipped FO's ? AFAIK both travel at the speed of light. What happens and how the data is processed at the other end is what counts every bit as much as how the data is transmitted.

Reread my post on Page 7 detailing how artillery is simulated.

The organizational stuff is spot on.

However from

http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm

If the connection between the FO and the battery was in order, the average delay between the FO giving a new target to the battery/battalion gambit was 5 - 8 minutes.

In CMXX terms: with no TRP

If the firing unit was already engaging a target, and was given a new target that was close to the previous one, the average delay was 2 - 4 minutes.

In CMXX terms: with no TRP

The variation in delay time depended mostly on two things; 1) the size of the caliber. (the weight of the gun) and 2) if the gun had to be swung into the new direction (i.e. the whole gun with it's carriage had to be turned in order to point the barrel into the right direction) .

As a comparison, the average delay of the Soviet artillery was 10 - 20 minutes.

From what I can see, there is no need to make adjustments to Finnish artillery delay times or FO speeds.

Perhaps you care to explain what was the command structure you based your data on when the Finnish FO delays were being modelled. Or when a Fast German FO gets his barrage with 1 minute delay even without a TRP, even in the Finnish sector.

I think this is just another case of Tero wanting to inject national bias into the game.

Ah, the "national bias" gambit.

I prefer "force specific modifier based on actual historical data".

And like the other hundred or so attempts he has made, we once again politely decline to destroy the integrity of the simulation to please him

Yet you do not shun from imposing similar (if negative) national bias-like elements on the Red Army artillery without destroying the integrity of the simulation. Curious.

How do you regard the korjausmuunnin and other relevant data which indicates there might make a prima face case for speeding up the Finnish FO's ?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by JR 8:

Very interested! I love to read that kind of post. And I think the same goes for almost everyone here.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Why did he not compare German Radio to German Wire FOs, Finnish Radio to German Wire FOs, German Radio to Finnish Radio FOs, and German Wire to Finnish Wire FOs?

Because I could not find any radio equipped Finnish FO's (the text "radio" beside the ordnance, right ?) in my copy of CMBB when I tried to set up a little test in the scenario editor for June 1941, 1943 and 1944 using both German and Finnish FO's.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

It must be added that Soviet bombers hit several civilian targets in Finland after German started their offensive in 1941. Finland hadn´t even declared war by the time.

Ouch. So what were those heinous russians to do? Pick out the germans in Finland? Because the Finns had allowed germans to use their airbases to lauch raids against the USSR (that is generally considered an act of war).</font>

[Juha Ahoniemi]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

AFAIK, German's were granted right to move their troop through Finland to Norway, nothing more before the war started.

According to Helge Seppälä (Suomi hyökkääjänä 1941)German planes used Finnish airfields.German planes delivered infantry to Viena canal to destroy it - from Finnish soil. German planes were continuously fueles at Utti. Seppälä has marked as source about that Mauno Jokipii's "Ilmatoiminta suomessa välittömästi ennen vatkosotaa"s.242

-Juha

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

I'm not aware of Luftwaffe given right to use Finnish airbases at the beginning of Barbarossa. Do you have a source or did you just made this up?

I think this is specifically mentioned in Red Star/Black Cross, I will look up a reference.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Why ? How much faster does a message travel on the air than along the wire to justify the longer delay for wire equipped FO's ? AFAIK both travel at the speed of light.

Actually neither travels at the speed of light

If the connection between the FO and the battery was in order, the average delay between the FO giving a new target to the battery/battalion gambit was 5 - 8 minutes.

In CMXX terms: with no TRP

If the firing unit was already engaging a target, and was given a new target that was close to the previous one, the average delay was 2 - 4 minutes.

In CMXX terms: with no TRP

That's even worse than the soviets had;

"As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.”

The Battle of Kursk, The Soviet General Staff Study, 1944. Quoted in this thread

Guess you shot yourself in the foot there, I'm going to plead for Finnish arty to be less responsive. As it is it is way to close to soviet times

Perhaps you care to explain what was the command structure you based your data on when the Finnish FO delays were being modelled. Or when a Fast German FO gets his barrage with 1 minute delay even without a TRP, even in the Finnish sector.

Please, for the love of God shows us one thing that proves that "fast" FOs have shorter delays (either quote the manual, quote someone from BF.C or show us test results) because I can't believe you're sticking to that story.

Oh and 1min sounds about right for mortars with LOS to target, so if Finnish mortar FOs with LOS to target do indeed get 6 minute delays then you may have a point.. but it would be nice if someone could confirm that.

Ah, the "national bias" gambit.

I prefer "force specific modifier based on actual historical data".

The problem here isn't that you're seeing things in black & white, you are looking only at the white.

If you only look at the finnish "historical data" without contrasting it with anything else it is always going to look like they deserve "force specific modifiers". For example did you know that the Finns had special, improved procedures for blocking fires? I guess that's a bonus right there, and I could go on and on..

[ October 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Battlefront.com]

Foxbat,

I too am confused about Tero's post.

Tero

Your fact quoting of response time is many times worse than what the current response time is for Finns. Are you arguing that we should make things worse? Also remember that Experience setting has a lot to do with response time.

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).

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

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

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. 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 The engine rewrite will address the artillery modeling concerns such as this one.

Steve

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

"As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.”

The Battle of Kursk, The Soviet General Staff Study, 1944.

Hrm..actually that might not be the best source in the world to quote. I mean, lets face it, we arent looking at the pillar of unbiased truth here.

...Wasnt it that same General staff study that put the German tank losses at Kursk to 600 something (and not only that, most were Tigers and Panthers too).

[ October 18, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Wehr]

Here's a site for you guys to chew on:

http://www.geocities.com/~fi1877/

Finnish Armored forces of WW2

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Hrm..actually that might not be the best source in the world to quote. I mean, lets face it, we arent looking at the pillar of unbiased truth here.

Actually we are, this info was classified for a reason.

...Wasnt it that same General staff study that put the German tank losses at Kursk to 600 something (and not only that, most were Tigers and Panthers too).

No. These general staff studies are internal documents, the intention is to analyse and learn from these things. It wouldn't make much sense if they only contained wildly off-the mark misinformation conceived for propaganda use

And vice versa I don't think the Ivan in the street would be to impressed if Pravda proudly declared the TOT of preplanned fire to be 1.5-3 minutes.. unless he was a grog of course

Anyway these figures merely show that under comparable circumstances artillery delays between armies are in the same ballpark.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Foxbat,

I too am confused about Tero's post.

[..]

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

Thanks for the response, now that I have 'official' confirmation I am once again 100% sure of my mental health

And yes the slow/fast attribute appears to be the source of this confusion.

As for why there are no Radio FOs for the Finns... I'll have to look into that. But from one of our researchers, this is what we had to go on:

"Throughout the war there was a severe shortage of radios. [..]"

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

I don't think there is any real reason to have radio FOs for the Finns as they were not used as a matter of doctrine. And with most units in static positions for most of the war there wasn't much need unless the wires were knocked out (which doesn't happen in CMBB anyway).

Here is an example of that happening in the russian army:

"The telephone communications were interrupted from the very beginning of the bombardment. Radio operators Ivanov and Burenkov, who had arrived with Metelsky the day before, immediately deployed their A7-A radio set and contacted the battery. As soon as the bombardment subsided a little, a telephone operator Sukhanov was sent on my order to check the line. Time passed, communications were not getting restored, although it was clear that the break was close to the NP (observation post) -- the Germans did not fire at our rear. Then Vania Skorogonov crawled to the line, quickly restored the connection and dragged Sukhanov back with him -- he was lying there alive and well. By that time Metelsky was already giving orders to Shutrik by radio. Nevertheless, as soon as the firing platoons' call sign "Bukhta" ("Bay") could be heard through the crackle and rustle of cables being connected, the battery commander abandoned radio and came over to the telephone operators. Either he, like many during that time, mistrusted radio communications or had an exaggerated impression of the capabilities of radio homing."

Evgenii Monyushko, Divisional Artillery. Pulling front duty as FO.

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.

I was under the impression that the "Korja" was used for more than that, but I guess we'll have to wait for the fact-finding mission to tell us more about it

The engine rewrite will address the artillery modeling concerns such as this one.

That is good news. I wonder how long it will take before our Pavlovian response is strong enough that we will drool at the mere utterence of the words "engine rewrite"

[ October 18, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

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

Hrm..actually that might not be the best source in the world to quote. I mean, lets face it, we arent looking at the pillar of unbiased truth here.

Actually we are, this info was classified for a reason.

...Wasnt it that same General staff study that put the German tank losses at Kursk to 600 something (and not only that, most were Tigers and Panthers too).

No. These general staff studies are internal documents, the intention is to analyse and learn from these things. It wouldn't make much sense if they only contained wildly off-the mark misinformation conceived for propaganda use

And vice versa I don't think the Ivan in the street would be to impressed if Pravda proudly declared the TOT of preplanned fire to be 1.5-3 minutes.. unless he was a grog of course

Anyway these figures merely show that under comparable circumstances artillery delays between armies are in the same ballpark.</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Then we are talking about the same source. And yes I know that Glanz translated it, and yes I know that it was written for internal Soviet consumption.

That however does not change the rediculous kill/loss claims. Nor does it change all the other hoplelessly biased and/or distorted presentations of various "facts".

I have no idea as I haven't read the whole thing, but there were several studies and IIRC Glantz translated at least 2. Besides I would think that for technical data it shouldn't be to far off.

The simple fact of the matter is that Soviet sources from the 1917-1991 time period are not credible. Period.

That is just BS (excuse my french), of course there will be errors, misinterpretation and prejudice. But that goes for any source from any country, from any time. And we can't very well do any historic study without relying on sources.

The Soviets had the same problem any totalitarian nation will always have.

Do you trust germans sources, do you trust any sources? After all in a democracy, like in a dictatorship, knowledge and the interpretation of facts is power. It is (or should be) well known that even in open democratic societies reports are "augmented", "reinterpreted" or simply surpressed. That would argue against the use of sources from a democratic society.

[ October 18, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Terrific post,JR8 - would be interested in learning more about your father's regiment and why it was so famous!

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

One example of such a source is the Kubinka test report on soviet 100mm and 122mm tank guns and their effectiveness versus German armor. This was a report made by the armaments board, and the report was to be used as a base for desicion regarding the future development and use of tank guns. In that report (that was presented to Stalin himself) the test results were falsified by the use of sub-quality German armor.

I know the report, but I have never heard about it being falsified. So I would like to know more about it how and why was it falsified? (was one target of less quality armour, or were they both sub-quality).

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Terrific post,JR8 - would be interested in learning more about your father's regiment and why it was so famous!

Sorry for stepping in, I hope that JR8 might discuss a little bit the relationship of the Book and his father's experiences. That would be a treat for every Finn on the bord.

Anyway, the regiment in question is the regiment where a certain MG company served, which was the historical base for Väino Linna's (who served in that company) novel 'Unknown Soldier' and the two very popular movies based on that book. It is the "official" unofficial story of the Finnish soldier, but also very universal story of war with a Finnish twist. In the nation's mythology it's probably bigger than Bible or Kalevala. It's translated into English (not very well) and many other languages, and actually it is a VERY good novel on historical infantry tactics, human experience in time of war, humour and tragedy, an úbersoldier, pompous officers etc., No spoilers if you don't insist having them, read it if you can find it.

BTW I've understood that a lot of the Finnish infantry sounds in CMBB are quotes from that Book.

[ October 18, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Kallimakhos]

Steve, this a bit of deja-vu, but anyway too minor points on your "history of Finnish wars".

You were more right than you suspected on how close the Winter war was, and how lucky the Finns were. The diplomatic front was as important as the battle field. According to new information coming from the soviet files, Stalin had inaccurate information from London and Paris and he hugely overestimated the threat of British-French expeditionary force coming to aid the Finns. It was actually just the day after Stalin had aggreed to peace aggreement that he got more accurate information that the British-French aid, which he feared, was just big talk and nothing more (and on the field Finns were totally beaten, no ammo, no nothing, going on the very last fumes, just showing off.) No need to tell that when Stalin learned the truth he was mighty pissed and his spies in question weren't happy after that.

Second point. You understand to some extend what was strategically in play on the northern front, but I must say you downplay a bit the relative importance of what IF. It was a conscious decision by Mannerheim (judging his troops willingnes and other factors) not to sack Leningrad, and also the all important supply routes from Murmansk could have been hit much worse by Finns if they had chosen so. Mannerheim and Finnish governement set very limited goals, Eastern Karelia was basically just a bargaining chip, a tactic that failed in the end.

If Mannerheim had shared the same goals with Hitler and sacked Leningrad and cut the Murmansk railroads, who knows what would have happened. There was a lot of friction and badmouthing between Finns and Germans in 1941 and 1942. Finnland was never a full ally of Germany but had it's own more limited agenda. The hypothetical question, if Finland had shared the same goals with Germany and gone all the way, would sacking Leningrand and putting a stop on aid from Murmansk have made a difference? Interesting academic question, at least. Anyway, I'm glad Mannerheim decided not to listen to Hitler but did his best to stay in the gray area.

OK, this goes just to show that militarily North was just as important as any other front (north-Murmansk and Leningrad; center-Moscow; south-Caspian oil) and you do not do justice just calling Finnish front strategically unimportant side-show. What was important and maybe even decisive was the political, less military, decision of inaction by Finnish military and political command.

To sum up: Finnish army was not out of puff to take very important strategic goals in 42, which mihgt have in many credible scenarios turned the balance and caused Axis victory on Eastern front and Russian collapse. It was a political desicion by the Finnish leadership, not military, not to do that, much thanks to very effective Western (US and UK) diplomacy. So please don't say that Finnish front was relatively unimportant, because that is not true. It was Finnish political decision to downplay the military importance of the northern front, and Hitler was very rightly extremely pissed with that desicion by Mannerheim.

[Battlefront.com]

Kallimakhos,

You were more right than you suspected on how close the Winter war was, and how lucky the Finns were.

Wow! That is some interesting information. That would indicate Stalin made the decision to accept the more limited "victory" in part because he feared the Western Allies really were going to put its money (and troops ) where its mouth was. He must have kicked himself in the pants every day after for believing that one!

Ironically, it was because Hitler feared the Britsh and French would take Norway and Sweden that Germany invaded Norway and had plans to take over Sweden if necessary. But unlike Stalin's misinformation, Hitler was correct. The British and French did attempt to do just that (so much for respect of neutrality!).

Then later on Hitler learned of Allied plans to invade Norway in 1942/43, which was in fact correct. The thing he messed up on was that the Allies dropped the idea as illadvised. So significant German forces were left in Norway for 3 critical years of conflict without firing a shot except at Partisans.

Second point. You understand to some extend what was strategically in play on the northern front, but I must say you downplay a bit the relative importance of what IF. It was a conscious decision by Mannerheim (judging his troops willingnes and other factors) not to sack Leningrad...

Yes, I meant to mention this fact. Mannerheim should be hailed as one of the greatest wartime leaders of the 20th century. And I mean that. This shrewd and very sensible behavior probably did save Finland from a much more unfavorable peace treaty. One of the smartest political/military moves of the war.

It is interesting to note that Romanian leaders wanted to stop their hostilities against the Soviets after Basarabia was returned to Romanian control. However, Marshal Antonescu was also a pragmatic leader. He knew that if the German offensive failed, Romania was dead meat. Plus, Hungary was itching for a fight because Translivania was handed over to Romania in a German brokered arrangement to keep the peace in the area. Antonescu knew that if Romania didn't keep Hitler happy that the arrangement could be easily reversed.

Romania was therefore in a damned if they did, damned if they didn't position. If they opposed Germany they would likely lose Transilvania regardless of what happend with the Soviets. If they supported Hitler and the Soviet Union collapsed or sued for peace they would likely keep Transilvania and Basarabia. Worst case was not supporting Germany *and* Germany losing the war outright. Because the risks of pissing off the Germans was more imediate and realistically possible, Atonescu somewhat reluctantly forced his nation into total war along side the Germans. And we all know how that turned out...

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

[JR 8]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Terrific post,JR8 - would be interested in learning more about your father's regiment and why it was so famous!

Sorry for stepping in, I hope that JR8 might discuss a little bit the relationship of the Book and his father's experiences. That would be a treat for every Finn on the bord.

</font>