The Great (but not über) Finnish Thread II

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Tuomas:

And I agree with you that the delays for Finnish artillery seem about right but the delays for other countries seem too short. And reading from that article you linked maybe artillery is too accurate to begin with. Brits used massive amount of tubes to cover areas just because most of the rounds were not hitting the target, roight?

I would say that the article is at the very least a little americano-centric, and artillery practice of other nations a bit indervalued.

For example it mentions that only the Yanks could fire TOT missions, but Royal Artillery Methods in World War 2 notes that: [..] by late 1944 ToT was widely used for large opportunity engagements, with the batteries' clocks being synchronised from routine time signals broadcast by the BBC. When own troops' safety was a consideration the observer could also order 'no rounds after . . . .' (a particular time). The problem with ToT was that the observers tended to err on the side of caution and be generous with the amount of time they allowed for all batteries to be ready to fire. This meant that ToT engagements took longer than others.

I guess the reason for showing other nations' artillery practices in a highly simplified and almost cartoonish (germans do everything 'mit auBerstem Grundlichkeit', the russians are stuck in WW1, the British are sloppy) way is to illustrate the US practice.

Still it is a good article to illustrate just how artillery work in the field, as opposed to just describing procedures and organisation.

[N]JonS could fill in better how Brit (CW) artillery worked, besides blanketing large areas.

[ October 23, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I hope you (or BFC) don't mind me calling your bluff on this one

Bluff ? What bluff ?

As near as I can tell you bring up 3 points over and over again. These points not only appear to come directly from the winter war site's article on finnish artillery practices, you also consistently bring these same points up in such a way that they (should) appear relevant to the topic at hand.

Much of the argumentation revolves around these points. And as of yet Steve or someone in the know has not managed to comment directly on any of them.

Here we go on the mapping aspect again... nice way of putting it though.

Yes. The broken record does have more than one track on it.

But to give you an answer on this, one that should be close enough to what BFC might tell you, no of course topograhical info wasn't considered when they designed the artillery system.

That is the impression I got. And it was not too hard to state it now was it ?

BTW: was/is that classified information ?

How could they? Only by determining a priori for every time-period and every type of mission how well the topography was known and how good the maps available.

Sounds about right.

That is not only next to impossible without resorting to sweeping generalisations [say of the sort "Finns have great mapping they should have faster response time" ], it would also be unrealistic because some defences would be better prepared than others (which includes topographical survey) and a system that uses any kind of pre-determined assumptions on topographical info would be inflexible in this regard.

It seems to me there is a lot of info inferred that could and would act as a basis for a scientific model.

I hope that system based on pre-determined assumptions on topographical info was not the American or the German system which would have been inconvenienced.

Now in a more sophisticated artillery model this could of course be handled better. But currently this issue is handled by TRPs, which is obviously not a perfect method but at least it's flexible and doesn't disadvantadge one nationality more than others.

I would tend to agree. If the TRP's did not disadvantage one nationality more than others by their mere absence in certain types of CM battle types.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

That would lead to the follow up questions "Is there really any need to have different delays for anybody. Why not have all FO's act exactly the same with the same delays and what not ?"

IOW, if all the differences are off the CM map, do we really need 'force specific modifiers' (or whatever)?

Exactly. Why should a German FO get a different (better) responce time than a Soviet FO ?

I thought most differences in delay currently depend on the type of artillery called in and are not intrinsic to the FO? Ie the soviets have most of their arty (especially the big stuff) at a higher organisational level and hence possibly longer delays.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

Bluff ? What bluff ?

Just my little joke, about you bringing up the same point but in disguise

Mind you I always think my jokes are hilarious, others tend to have a less developped sense of humour

That is the impression I got. And it was not too hard to state it now was it ?

BTW: was/is that classified information ?

I'm quite sure that the artillery system and it's limitation were discussed at length in the good ol' days of CMBO.

It seems to me there is a lot of info inferred that could and would act as a basis for a scientific model.

Maybe, but I would think that this should really be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The only quick fix I could think of is to make 'mapping' a buyable feature with rarity based on country, period and mission type.

Still that is not only far outside the current scope of CM, it would also require a vast amount of research time (not to mention an overhaul of the artillery system). Not something I'd expect to see before the engine rewrite.

I would tend to agree. If the TRP's did not disadvantage one nationality more than others by their mere absence in certain types of CM battle types.

I agree that this has been handled somewhat inelegantly, but I guess that's what were stuck with for the forseeable future.

And no I don't believe that Finns would have a sole right to TRP's on the attack.. other countries did pre-battle survey (including aerial survey) to you know.

[Keke]

Originally posted by tero:

Have you seen the movie Winter War ? There is a scene where a grunt dispatch runner arrives at the company CP and deliveres the requests for fire support. The CO grunts to the arty puke "See if you can spare a strike at Pärssinen" and the arty puke does not have to ask any questions he just picks up the phone and moments later the pathetic barrage is delivered on target. Without any ranging shots fired.

For £100: what was missing from that scene ?

A) the FO

the korjausmuunnin

C) adequate fire support

D) decent communications

E) all of the above[/QB]

So BFC should make a patch according to a movie?

[Tuomas]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I guess the reason for showing other nations' artillery practices in a highly simplified and almost cartoonish (germans do everything 'mit außerstem Grundlichkeit', the russians are stuck in WW1, the British are sloppy) way is to illustrate the US practice.

JonS could fill in better how Brit (CW) artillery worked, besides blanketing large areas.

Yes I must admit that I don't know very much about artillery practice in other countries.

And I too think that the article could described a bit cartoonish. So was the article right about brits not using any higher mathematics than the Pythagoras equation? I would find that bit odd if it were to be so.

Anyway I still think that artillery is too swift. FO searches for the spotting rounds, decides the corrections, radios the observations (or corrections) to the battery, guns are adjusted and loaded and after that the shells need to travel to the target. Somewhere in between the observations need to be calculated to corrections too. Tell me, do you think that all this could be done in 30 seconds? Only when spotting rounds are right on this could be possible.

-TNT-

[JonS]

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

JonS could fill in better how Brit (CW) artillery worked, besides blanketing large areas.

Yes I must admit that I don't know very much about artillery practice in other countries.

And I too think that the article could described a bit cartoonish. So was the article right about brits not using any higher mathematics than the Pythagoras equation? I would find that bit odd if it were to be so.</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

I've seen that article before, and wasn't very impressed with it. It doesn't really describe, compare and contrast all nations artillery, it just propagates the myth that all the other militarys were inept buffoons until the US showed up. There are some good elements in it, and its decription of US proceedures are in particular, but I wouldn't take it much past that.

überAmericans goooood, überFinnish baaaad.

By-the-by: Tero has been banging on about überFinnish maps again, as though no one else ever had the thought to draw a 2D representation of a 3D environment on paper and to scale

Actually I have not said anything of the sort. What has been missing is the data on the others. I have presented the Finnish side so I expect something on the others regarding their topographical services and practises. So far zilch, nada, zip, bobcus.

Either they indeed could not render 3D into 2D in scale or there is something sinister going on behind the scenes.

I direct you to Foxbats remarks (which sound very much as if they came from Steve directly) on the topographical data gathered when the original model was being developed.

That is not only next to impossible without resorting to sweeping generalisations [say of the sort "Finns have great mapping they should have faster response time" ], it would also be unrealistic because some defences would be better prepared than others (which includes topographical survey) and a system that uses any kind of pre-determined assumptions on topographical info would be inflexible in this regard.

If you think the Finns should get some benefit from süberior mapping, give them TRPs as Foxbat suggested,

Works only for the types of battles you can purchase them in.

or crank up the experience of your FOs. Crack and Elite FOs knock out firemissions rather quickly.

6mins in my copy of the game for a Crack Finnish FO firing (IIRC) 122mm ordnance.

Or, for those days when you're really feeling your überFinn oats, do both.

Did that and look what happened.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Just my little joke, about you bringing up the same point but in disguise

Oh, I thought you were about to render my data invalid by introducing some new data.

Mind you I always think my jokes are hilarious, others tend to have a less developped sense of humour

Happens to me all the time.

I'm quite sure that the artillery system and it's limitation were discussed at length in the good ol' days of CMBO.

Yes. But I do not remember having seen anything on the topographical aspect. Except a debate with Andreas quite some time ago about the German occupation of France and my astonishment about their apparent lack of topographical survey.

Maybe, but I would think that this should really be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The only quick fix I could think of is to make 'mapping' a buyable feature with rarity based on country, period and mission type.

That would be ideal.

But why not simply acknowledge it, establish just how important it was and adjust the existing delays to match the data in a future CMBB patch ?

Still that is not only far outside the current scope of CM, it would also require a vast amount of research time (not to mention an overhaul of the artillery system). Not something I'd expect to see before the engine rewrite.

IMO it is not that far outside the Scope.

One curious note BTW: browsing through the various URL's it seems the Finnish artillery is the only one which specifically mentions the topographical data and availability of accurate maps as an important factor in the procedures.

I agree that this has been handled somewhat inelegantly, but I guess that's what were stuck with for the forseeable future.

And no I don't believe that Finns would have a sole right to TRP's on the attack.. other countries did pre-battle survey (including aerial survey) to you know.

Attack/defend battle types (where you already get TRP's) are not the main issue. The issue is the types of battle you do not get TRP's.

BTW: are you acting as the voice of Steve/BFC or some other such organ ? Your voice seems somehow more authorative all of a sudden.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Keke:

So BFC should make a patch according to a movie?

No need to. It already seems to work like that.

[ October 23, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by tero:

überAmericans goooood, überFinnish baaaad.

Not sure of your point here, or who you're trying to make it to. I thought made it clear that I objected to the überUS angle of the article.

Actually I have not said anything of the sort. What has been missing is the data on the others. I have presented the Finnish side so I expect something on the others regarding their topographical services and practises. So far zilch, nada, zip, bobcus.

Mapping was the responsibility of the RA and/or the RE (varied by time and location). I can show you a section of a map drawn by the NZA, but I'm not sure what that would prove :confused:

That the Allies used maps? Surely you knew that, or could at least take it on trust.

That the Allies maps were of good quality? See above.

Incidentally, I note in the photos Ari has from the museum there appears to be a hand drawn map (as opposed to a hand drawn master then printed copies). Issuing everyone with their own individual hand drawn map doesn't to me sound like a terrific way of going about business. Aside from there being no elevation information, the chances of having more than a few such maps without introducing some major variations would have to be fairly remote.

Works only for the types of battles you can purchase them in.

*shrug* Then don't play those battles. IMHO, TRPs should be under artillery, not fortifications, but thats just me. Besides, I seldom play QBs, and scenario designers seem very loath to use TRPs for some reason.

Try designing your own series of überFinnish scenarios. Then you can have dozens of TRPs and set it up so you can single handedly smite all the Russians you want

6mins in my copy of the game for a Crack Finnish FO firing (IIRC) 122mm ordnance.

At what level were 122mms held? Do you think that might account for the delay? More to the point, how is this different from any other nation?

Regards

JonS

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

I direct you to Foxbats remarks (which sound very much as if they came from Steve directly) on the topographical data gathered when the original model was being developed.

No I just followed the artillery debate back in the days of CMBO (when I still had my original member number, to quote PeterX ), so I know a lot of what BTS posted on the issue in the past.

This would be a good time to dig some of that back up, because it covered some of the why's and wherefore's that we now stumble upon again.

Speaking of why's I think JonS is spot on when he says that "[..] everything in CM is too swift. Slowing down the artillery to realistic engagment rates would make it totally worthless.".

A battle in Combat Mission takes 30-60 minutes, an operation is several half hour engagements... the war seems to have included tea-breaks

And this does lead to odd situations, especially in arty where fire mission arrive faster than the shell could fly, without any apparent need to calculate firing solutions or even train the guns on the next target..

[ October 23, 2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by tero:

IMO it is not that far outside the Scope.

It's intelligence gathering, which is strictly speaking outside the scope of the tactical battle. I would love to see it implemented in one way or another (eg the soviet always took great pains to gather information on the kind of troops positioned on the other side of the front, especially if a an offensive was upcoming. Wouldn't it be nice to see that reflected in some way).

One curious note BTW: browsing through the various URL's it seems the Finnish artillery is the only one which specifically mentions the topographical data and availability of accurate maps as an important factor in the procedures.

It's just one of those things that often get overlooked, or taken for granted.

Take for example the measuring of barrel wear of guns as a factor in the accuracy of guns, the Finnish Artillery primer on the winter war mentions this and other factors quite explicitly. And you'll seldom find it mentioned anywhere else yet it was SOP in most armies.

I guess the fact that that finnish site is one of the best arty primers period has something to do with it too. Especially since it doesn't get stuck in procedures and explains clearly and vivedly how thing ...er worked.

BTW: are you acting as the voice of Steve/BFC or some other such organ ? Your voice seems somehow more authorative all of a sudden.

Good heavens no, I just followed the discussions in the past (and some of them up when I rejoined the forum). I've also have a more than passing interest in (board)game design*, which means I tend to look at things form a game mechanics standpoint.

* One day my Historical car design and Racing Boardgame project will bear fruitition and I will be famous the world over

[ October 23, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by JonS:

So, for the Finns we have the "Winter War" site.

For the US we have the article just posted.

For the RA (and RHA, HAC, RAA, RCA, RCHA, NZA, SAA, RIA, PA, etc) we have Nigel Evans' site, which I certainly can't improve upon.

I haven't found any sites regarding Soviet, German or French artillery practices (lots of pics of guns, very little test). But, German and French artillery practice is covered in On Artillery by Gudmundson (though he does rather seem to be in love with Bruchmüller).

Not an actual site but there was a thread about how sov arty was going to be implemented in the game which has a lot of good stuff: Soviet artillery modelled inaccurately in CMBB?, especially on page 2 when BTS weighs in. A short excerpt that I also posted on the previous thread:

The Soviet Artillery arm underwent major changes throughout the war in terms of numbers, C&C abilities, skill, and employment. So we must keep in mind that what might be relevant to one period of time (say Kursk era) might not be applicable either earlier or later.

The general trend was that as the war went on the Soviet artillery arm grew in size, importance, and abilities (especially when benchmarked against "western" practices).

Posted by Big Time Software

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.

There is a lot more good info in that thread, although it is still nowhere near the actual sites in detail. There is also some good detail stuff to be found in various memoirs and the like but there just isn't anyone who has stood up and provided a comprehensive evaluation of soviet artillery practices in english on the web (and considering that I still remember the years past when I scoured the web for pics and info on obscure russian tanks -ie everything not a T-34- I'm not really surprised ).

[Foxbat]

This one's for Tero:

Big Time Software

posted January 29, 2002 11:21 PM

[..]

Artillery is a whole 'nother discussion that I would rather not even get into. It is enough to say that Soviet artillery is completely different than Axis (particularly German and Finnish) for the whole war, but especially during the late 1941 through 1943 period. And we aren't just talking delays here.

Apparently BTS already made the Finns 0ber when they designed the game

[JonS]

Tero (and others) have asked about the equipment used by RA units. From Nigel Evans' site comes the following:

Organisation and Equipment - Observers

... By 1942 each [FO] party had three radios ...

... The observers’ basic equipment were binoculars, map, compass and protractor. Batteries also held telescopes, tripod mounted stereoscopic binoculars, optical range finders, directors and artillery boards for their OPs, the last 3 to enable 'silent registration' ...

Organisation and Equipment - Command Posts

... All CPs had similar fire control equipment. Most important was the artillery board and its associated instruments. This board was 30 inches square (there was also a 21-inch version) with linen reinforced paper pinned to it. This was gridded, normally the scale was 1:25,000 and the grid could be either yards or metres depending on the type of map used in the theatre. A cylindrical brass pivot was positioned at the correct location to represent the ‘pivot’ gun of each troop to about 10 yards accuracy. A steel bearing arc aligned to the zero line was pinned to the board and a range arm rotated on the pivot along the bearing arc. The board's purpose was to measure the range and switch (from zero line) to the target.

Various other instruments, graphs and data were also used in the CPs. These included:

* Range Tables – provided ballistic data about the gun and for corrections for non-standard conditions.

* Correction of the Moment Graph – composed using data from a meteor telegram and locally read charge temperature.

* Sands Graph – enabled individual deflections for displacement of each gun from the pivot gun when lines of fire were not to be parallel. Tables were also used for this.

* 4 Figure Logarithm Tables – for calculations when accuracy took precedence over speed.

* Slide rule – for various calculations and interpolation of data.

* Charts for crest clearance, angle of sight, standard barrages, etc.

* Proformas for various processes and records.

CPs did not have an instrument similar to the US Graphical Firing Table (GFT), mainly because the gun-rule was the means of converting range to elevation. However, in 1941 a 'Rule, Correction BC' was being developed for at least 5.5-in guns. This was a very sophisticated 'GFT' like instrument that converted map range to corrected range (set on the gun-rule) by applying all the corrections for non-standard conditions including wind speed and direction. However, it does not seem to have entered general service...

So, maps were usually at 1:25thou scale. Radios were (relativly) plentiful. I took the Artillery Board to be the equvalent of the Korja.

The 'gun-rule' is the conical thing you can sometimes see in photos of the 25-pr., on the left side of the breech. From Evans' site comes this definition:

Gun-rule: An instrument at each gun (part of the sights on British designed ones) that converted ranges to angular elevations corrected for the MV of the gun. Its scale had cursors for each charge that were set to the gun’s current MVs. The cursor for the ordered charge was then aligned with the ordered range marked on another scale. Usually fitted to British guns as an integral part of the sights for one-man laying such threat a bubble in an arm aligned to the range scale was leveled by physically elevating the gun barrel to the required elevation. Separate 'bar' form gun-rules were use with guns (eg US origin) where they could not be integrated with the sights and for intermediate charges (eg 2½, etc for 25-pdr).

The gun-rule can be seen in this photo:

Regards

JonS

[ October 23, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Triumvir]

So _that_'s what the conical thing on the 25pdr is for! We only ever learnt how to handle and maintain it for parade firing and I was always curious how the cone worked.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

And this does lead to odd situations, especially in arty where fire mission arrive faster than the shell could fly, without any apparent need to calculate firing solutions or even train the guns on the next target..

Indeed. And when I cry überwolf and actually have something to back it up with it is national bias cathegorically ?

Redirect from the original thread (page 12) in case you missed it the first time around

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Are you arguing that we should make things worse?

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

Just to clear one point: regardless of the organizational level refers to the data on winterwar.com about the average delays for the Finnish arty during Winter War and Nablas TOE.

From Nablas data we can conclude there were only mortars in regimental/battalion level. All the real arty was at division level or it was "independent".

The average delays for Finns (during Winter War but I think they did not get any worse during Continuation War)

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.

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. 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.]

[ October 24, 2002, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Artillery is a whole 'nother discussion that I would rather not even get into. It is enough to say that Soviet artillery is completely different than Axis (particularly German and Finnish) for the whole war, but especially during the late 1941 through 1943 period. And we aren't just talking delays here.

Apparently BTS already made the Finns 0ber when they designed the game

Sorry. I see nothing in that statement about Finns being made über. All I see is the Red Army arty being completely different than Axis (particularly German and Finnish) for the whole war, but especially during the late 1941 through 1943 period. And we aren't just talking delays here.

Just because the word Finnish appears in the text it does not transform it to evidence about the modelling of the Finnish arty.

[ October 24, 2002, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[TN]

Originally posted by Keke:

That, my friend, is called a preplanned defensive fire mission. The FO has, in cooperation with the platoon leader and company CO, delivered a list of defensive barrages and their coordinates to the supporting firing unit. The firing unit has calculated their firing solution, and especially if they have previously fired to the general area, no ranging shots are needed. The barrage will be accurate enough.

In fact, if an infantry unit has been assigned artillery priority, the guns of the supporting unit are trained to their defensive missions when not firing elsewhere. In principle, the guard on duty in the foremost foxhole can call a defensive mission just by relaying the target name to the battery. The battery will fire, no questions asked. ("Pärssinen" is not the most usual type of name, but then again Taipale front in the Winter War was not the most usual war). This is how things should work under ideal conditions.

rgds,

TN

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Not sure of your point here, or who you're trying to make it to. I thought made it clear that I objected to the überUS angle of the article.

Sorry. Nothing personal. I'm just a bit amused how one mans national bias is other mans legit assesment of facts but not vice versa.

Mapping was the responsibility of the RA and/or the RE (varied by time and location).

During the war ?

I can show you a section of a map drawn by the NZA, but I'm not sure what that would prove :confused:

That the Allies used maps? Surely you knew that, or could at least take it on trust.

That the Allies maps were of good quality? See above.

Can you provide any data on scales and such ?

Incidentally, I note in the photos Ari has from the museum there appears to be a hand drawn map (as opposed to a hand drawn master then printed copies).

That is actually the fire plan overlay, not the map itself. There are for example friendly units written on it and the grid is "named" for lack of a better term. The anybody (not just FO) can request fire by indicating the hex grid as "Retku" and give a general description of the target area (bend towards east in eastern shore of stream east of the hill 127.4 for example) if no prominent terrain features are named like "area of Portinhoikka crossroads" or "barn of the Muttilainen farm". The BHQ can then pin the pin and do their thing and fire a strike at the target they just plotted.

Issuing everyone with their own individual hand drawn map doesn't to me sound like a terrific way of going about business.

I trust you are familiar with the use of map overlays.

Aside from there being no elevation information, the chances of having more than a few such maps without introducing some major variations would have to be fairly remote.

The elevation information is irrelevant in the overlay because if you know the exact position of the batteries and the map is accurate enough you can rule out areas where you can not hit with that battery already during battery set up. When the fire directions come in the BHQ can inform the FO instantly "no can do" if the pin is pinned in the indicated area.

*shrug* Then don't play those battles. IMHO, TRPs should be under artillery, not fortifications, but thats just me.

That is not a bad suggestion actually.

Besides, I seldom play QBs, and scenario designers seem very loath to use TRPs for some reason.

Somehow the "play überElite Finns in assault scens instead of QB's" somehow defeats one of the major turn ons and attractions the game has.

Try designing your own series of überFinnish scenarios. Then you can have dozens of TRPs and set it up so you can single handedly smite all the Russians you want

Well.... I like QB's. With the appropriate rarity options on I get all the TRP's I need but not enough artillery.

At what level were 122mms held?

It was regimental or divisional. Most of the arty for the Finns is.

Do you think that might account for the delay? More to the point, how is this different from any other nation?

See my other post on organization and average delays.

[Tero]

Originally posted by TN:

That, my friend, is called a preplanned defensive fire mission.

Yes.

The FO has, in cooperation with the platoon leader and company CO, delivered a list of defensive barrages and their coordinates to the supporting firing unit.

I have not even begun to bring in fire plans, the different types of targets and the different forms of fire they are supposed to be fired at to this debate in earnest.

The firing unit has calculated their firing solution, and especially if they have previously fired to the general area, no ranging shots are needed. The barrage will be accurate enough.

In CM world that would be done with a TRP. No contest.

But what about a typical 1941 attack phase (or 1944 delay phase style battle to simulate a hasty counter attack) meeting engagement style battle ? Would you say with enemy contact imminent an arty fire plan would be drawn for the upcoming advance before the troops set out ? Or in case of 1944 counter attack a previous defensive fire plan is updated/adjusted ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

It's intelligence gathering, which is strictly speaking outside the scope of the tactical battle.

Yet another difference.

Pin pointing the defensive positions is intelligence gathering. Orienteering is not.

Anyways, the data should be gathered well in advance and is most definitely in the scope of tactical combat. You can not get lost using a lousy map if you do not have that map in the first place.

For armies operating overseas/abroad the task of mapping the terrain is indeed intelligence gathering. But something that would/should be done before the troops step one foot in the terrain. IIRC the Germans used tourist maps when they conquered France (and from what I learned from Andreas they left the topographical stuff at that).

I would love to see it implemented in one way or another (eg the soviet always took great pains to gather information on the kind of troops positioned on the other side of the front, especially if a an offensive was upcoming. Wouldn't it be nice to see that reflected in some way).

Realism is good.

It's just one of those things that often get overlooked, or taken for granted.

Indeed.

Take for example the measuring of barrel wear of guns as a factor in the accuracy of guns, the Finnish Artillery primer on the winter war mentions this and other factors quite explicitly. And you'll seldom find it mentioned anywhere else yet it was SOP in most armies.

I guess the fact that that finnish site is one of the best arty primers period has something to do with it too. Especially since it doesn't get stuck in procedures and explains clearly and vivedly how thing ...er worked.

With most of Finnish males having experience in things military you can not claim accuracy and speedy responce if you do not emphazise the elements that go into it.

I think one of the reasons the procedures are left out from the books written right after the war was because they were read by the guys who took part in the war and did not need explaining (and the stuff was classified anyway). And newer books leave them out because our army being a conscript army there is no need to go into details of procedure since most of the male population gets the drift without going to too much details while the mechanics and the other less obscure factors are not widely known since not everybody go to the artillery (and the stuff is semi-classified anyway).

Good heavens no, I just followed the discussions in the past (and some of them up when I rejoined the forum). I've also have a more than passing interest in (board)game design*, which means I tend to look at things form a game mechanics standpoint.

OK.

* One day my Historical car design and Racing Boardgame project will bear fruitition and I will be famous the world over

Be sure to steer away from CDV....

[JonS]

Originally posted by tero:

During the war ?

Yes.

Remember the British army fought over France and Belgium (twice), Norway, clear across North Africa (several times), Ethiopia, Iraq, Madagascar, Syria, throughout SE Asia, up the lenght of Italy, through Holland and Germany, etc. plus all the other places where troops were deployed but not required to fight. Not just a little piece of NW Russia I wouldn't doubt the Britishs' ability to make maps lightly if I were you

Can you provide any data on scales and such ?

1:25,000

Vertical interval 25m

Interestingly enough, the map looks like it was optimised for metric, rather than imperial.

That is actually the fire plan overlay, not the map itself.

Ok. If so, ignore what I said about it being a map.

Triumvir, I've done many a salute on the 25-pr. too. Where abouts are you from?

Regards

JonS

[ October 24, 2002, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

... By 1942 each [FO] party had three radios

The party must have been a blast....

How many men to a party ? And how was the actual spotting done ? FO teams going off and directions/observations relayed to the FO party site or to the BQH ?

... The observers’ basic equipment were binoculars, map, compass and protractor. Batteries also held telescopes, tripod mounted stereoscopic binoculars,

For direct fire/self spotted fire missions ?

optical range finders, directors and artillery boards for their OPs, the last 3 to enable 'silent registration' ...

Please ellaborate.

This board was 30 inches square (there was also a 21-inch version) with linen reinforced paper pinned to it.

This was gridded, normally the scale was 1:25,000 and the grid could be either yards or metres depending on the type of map used in the theatre. A steel bearing arc aligned to the zero line was pinned to the board and a range arm rotated on the pivot along the bearing arc. The board's purpose was to measure the range and switch (from zero line) to the target.

rearranging a bit

I took the Artillery Board to be the equvalent of the Korja.

That would actually be a taso (flat/plain/plane) as seen in the picture with no map contours you asked about. The Korja is a separate instrument.

A cylindrical brass pivot was positioned at the correct location to represent the ‘pivot’ gun of each troop to about 10 yards accuracy.

Getting a picture here about some of the differences

From the winterwar site

....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. .....

.... Topographic preparations meant calculating correct and accurate coordinates for the positions of the batteries, fire observation positions and, of course, different preset targets and target areas. The instruments for this were accurate maps, aerial photographs, surveys and exact determination of direction (using e.g. sun- and star based measurement, and magnetic instruments like the compass and azimuth-disc). The topographic preparations also included in measuring the battery sheaf.

Various other instruments, graphs and data were also used in the CPs.

Too detailed for me.

I trust an artillery expert can make notes on the differences is any.

However, it does not seem to have entered general service...

Unlike the Korja.

So, maps were usually at 1:25thou scale.

Seems so.

Radios were (relativly) plentiful.

Yep.