Is The "General Winter" good for Finns and Soviets and bad for Germans etc in CM:BB?

[Molotov Cocktail]

Is The "General Winter" good for Finns and Soviets and bad for Germans and others in CM:BB?

German other Axis lower fighting morale (except Finland) during winter CM:BB?

And German other Axis equipment (except Finland) would not work always CM:BB during winter?

Germans and it's allies (Romania,Hungary, Italy, Slovakia except Finland [strictly speaking not formal ally of Germany, so strictly speaking not Axis country]) were badly prepared to winter, at least in 1941. And It's was amazing that Germans were badly prepared even in next year 1942 ( at least in Stalingrad).

Good book about battle of Stalingrad Stalingrad, Antony Beevor

Good clothing is not enough to keep your warm, you have to have warm place, when was serving in my national army we had tents equipped with iron stove, with iron stove and wood and warm sleeping bags, you did not notice that there could be even 40 degrees minus outside of tent.

Finnish Defense forces http://www.mil.fi

I think that finns used same kind of tents also in World War II or they had in their trenches warm wooden dugouts or billboxes (korsu in finnish language) , during Continuation War's (In Finland we call our part in war against russians and in German side Continuation war.

It was Continuation war because we did want to regain areas which we lost in our heroic" Winter War" against invading Stalin's Soviet Union") static "position war phase", where finns were in their own trenches and soviets in other side (I dont what is real word in english).

Germans had no proper cover against cold Russian Winter (at least 1941) so they took houses from russian civilians and throw them away from their houses to coldness and certain death (if they did not find another warm place to live through winter).

Finns and Soviets (at least those leaved in northern parts of Soviet Union and especially Siberian units) were accustomed their colder climates, they had better clothing example for harsh and inhumane Russian and Finnish winters.

So I thank it might be good that Germans and other Axis (expect Finland), would have during winter months lower fighting morale than during warm summer months in CM:BB.

Even fighting morale of diehard Waffen-SS soldier freezes (without proper clothing) in -20°- 40°.

War is hell, when people get killed, wounded and kill other people, but It's even more hell during winter time, it's truly "Russian hell)". When I was serving in my national army and it was wintertime, when something was not working like it should be it's was nottruly were nice, like supply nco forgot tent's base (tent's base is wood, so the wooden insulates soldier's from cold ground), then hot iron stove melted ground, and in morning were with our sleeping bags in wet sandy, and muddy ground.

(Ok maybe we had some kind of cloth between our sleeping bags and ground. And example hardness of finnish or russian winter is that when your food freezes quickly to your food box. ( I don't know what is right term for the food box, that is the metal box which every soldier carries with him)

"The German army was unprepared for the severity of the conditions it now faces, asn as the temperature dropped to minus 20 and minus 30 degrees, tanks and lorries started to breaking down. Weapons and artillery jammed; batteries froze solid, rendering radio equipment useless.

The Lufwaffe was grounded, cutting off supplies and support to the front. And the men,who had not been issued winter clothing, began to freeze to death. Thin leather boots and gloves were no defence against the relentless cold.

During December 1941, one panzer division reported that it was losing five times as many men to frosbite as were dying in combat.

Supplies of fuel ran out as tank crews kept their engines running all night rather than risk trying, but failing to restart them in the morning. Others simply burned petrol to keep warm.

The Russians, meanwhile, seemed immune to the freezing temperatures. Not only were they accustomed to such conditions they were better far better equipped to deal with them, having learned their lesson in Finland 1939-40.

As well as winter clothing, they had anti-freeze for their tanks and winter oil for their guns. German officers reported seeing Russian soldiers capture weapons that their own own units had abandoned as useless, oil them, and then turn them on their previous owners.

Even the ponies they used haul their artillery were better suited to the climate than their German counterparts, which were dying in droves. All of a sudden , the rules of warfare seemed to have been turned on their head."

World War II, The World In Flames, Owen Booth and John Walton

German gebirgsjägers in Lapland northern part of Finland had mules which were imported from mediterranean Greece (strictly speaking from Crete if I remember right). Poor mules died in arctic conditions when germans tried to capture important and vital seaport of Murmansk in far north.

Here is finnish propanda poster from World War II, It was intended for Soviet troops. In the picture of poster is dead and frozen Soviet soldier.

The text of poster says russian language: (above the picture) "BJELAJA SMJERT" " White Death", You can not resist this enemy - frost. You can not see it, but it surrounds you everewhere.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/kybelaja.jpg

By the way, soviets themselves used word "White Death" from finnish soldiers during "Winter War" 1939-1940, because finns had white snowcamouflagesuits over their uniforms.

[Soddball]

A simple answer to this question, in my opinion, should be "no".

The Finns and Soviets were not invincible, no matter how much the tediously vocal Finnish contingent of this board tries to convince us - and it gets very, very boring, so stop it.

CMBB is a game, a game where you pit your skills against that of your opponent or the computer. Artificial advantages for one nation against another smack to me of racism, and detract from the pure strategic challenge.

IF a scenario designer wants to include these issues in the game, then there should be a means for them to be able to, but otherwise such things should not be included. It's like including breakdown stats, so that some vehicles will break down during the game. Where's the fun in that? If I've bought a pair of Panzers to a battle I don't want to find that I've been deprived of them because some uber-grog decided it was realistic for them to break down after 17.24 minutes of use.

And for god's sake, spare us all this waffle about how great the Finns were. If you were so bloody clever, you'd have picked the right side to begin with.

[Schrullenhaft]

Logistics probably played a greater part in the effect of 'General Winter' than the actual temperatures. However the winter of '41-42 was probahly one of the coldest and most severe winters in decades in Russia. The Germans were basically unprepared logistically for the winter and they had just finished a hard summer and autumn campaign that stretched their resources and manpower to the limit.

The Germans and their allies had to trace their supply lines all the way back to their native countries. The inadequate rail and road system of Russia severely hampered the flow of supplies. On top of this Stalin's 'scortched earth' policy damaged a bit of the infrastructure that the Germans could have used.

The Russians and the Finns were fighting in their own countries and hence (generally speaking) had shorter lines of supply. The Finns didn't really field much of a mechanized force either, which makes certain aspects of logistics easier.

However, familiarity and training for combat in winter conditions does make a significant difference. The Siberian units that counterattacked outside of Moscow in '41-42 were much more familiar with winter fighting than the Germans they opposed. The same could be said of the defending Finns in the '39-40 Winter War compared to the Soviet units that attacked them. In the autumn and winter of '44-45 American troops suffered a very high attrition rate from trenchfoot and frostbite. Most Americans fighting in NWE weren't familiar with the rigors and hazards of long-term exposure to the cold and damp.

To actually make a point here... I agree with Soddball that there really shouldn't be any favoritism with nationalities during the winter. The new 'fitness' quality takes care of simulating that point, not some generic 'superiority' modifier for certain nationalities under certain weather conditions. If you believe that the Germans aren't prepared as they face the oncoming Russians, then (as a scenario designer) reduce their 'fitness rating' to a level that shows their long term exhaustion, cold and malnutrition.

[Tiger]

Don't Finns and Soviets have an extra heart to keep them warm and all their tanks float over mud too!

Seriously, my concern with CMBB (and I'm going to play the Soviets alot too) is that they'll be able to ignore cold and esp. muddy conditions while Axis forces all get stuck. I've read that the Soviets were just as effected by the mud as the Germans were. My take on it is that you should give the Soviet tanks their correct ground pressure and not have any special modifiers (i.e. national) to give them special advantages. It's a given that the Soviets were prepared for the cold and maybe even 'hardened' to it but that should be a function of the new unit 'condition' (e.g. fit, etc.) rather than some abstracted 'nationality bonus'.

-john

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Soddball:

A simple answer to this question, in my opinion, should be "no".

And for god's sake, spare us all this waffle about how great the Finns were. If you were so bloody clever, you'd have picked the right side to begin with.

Well aren't you surly about this! I tried but couldn't find a statement that Finns were/are invincible übersoldaten anywhere on Molotov's post.

In other news, Finns did pick the "right side" you dolt you. It was the side that helped them avoid getting under Russian rule, unlike the Baltic states and much of East Europe later. What is your problem?

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Don't Finns and Soviets have an extra heart to keep them warm and all their tanks float over mud too!

Correct! Here in Finland people also have wide, hairy ducklife feet which enable us to stomp on top of deep snow! And our feet never get cold!

Seriously, my concern with CMBB (and I'm going to play the Soviets alot too) is that they'll be able to ignore cold and esp. muddy conditions while Axis forces all get stuck. I've read that the Soviets were just as effected by the mud as the Germans were. My take on it is that you should give the Soviet tanks their correct ground pressure and not have any special modifiers (i.e. national) to give them special advantages. It's a given that the Soviets were prepared for the cold and maybe even 'hardened' to it but that should be a function of the new unit 'condition' (e.g. fit, etc.) rather than some abstracted 'nationality bonus'.

-john

I agree... I figure the effects of winter will come down to this: The wider tracks on Soviet tanks like T-34 and remember, CM:BB has the "stamina" factor (or what was it called?) for troops. Used to simulate, for example, the physical fitness of young Siberians in winter equipment going against old and feeble German militia who had been on the field far too long already in 45.

I could guess scenarios from the late stages of Fortress Stalingrad could feature pretty low stamina German troops...

I think that will be quite enough. Scenario authors can use the feature to simulate troops in bad condition.

[Eric Young]

Across the board winter rules on national lines would not be a good thing. Some German units in 1941 (some SS, Ski, Jaeger, Mountain) had good winter equipment. Most did not. Some Russian units (Siberians, Ski, Mountain) had good winter equipment but on a whole the Russian army froze just like the German army did. As for the Axis allies, The Rumanian army withdrew most of their army during the worst of the winter and protected them from freezing temperatures. The Finns were the best of the lot with excellent across the board winterization. The Hungarians were pretty good too, because they maintained their own supply structure and did send in winter equipment. Winterization would be better served as a unit-by-unit item rather than a German/Russian/Finn/etc. type hard coded system. It could be tied in like unit experience is.

E

[Soddball]

Well aren't you surly about this! I tried but couldn't find a statement that Finns were/are invincible übersoldaten anywhere on Molotov's post.

In other news, Finns did pick the "right side" you dolt you. It was the side that helped them avoid getting under Russian rule, unlike the Baltic states and much of East Europe later. What is your problem?

I just find it thoroughly wearing whenever a Finn claims that their nation should have better x, y, z, or should be able to fight better, harder, faster, or whatever. Tero, I have noticed, is particularly guilty of this.

I have no objections to patriotism, in its place, but trying to suggest that Finnish soldiers were invincible, or were supermen, is wrong. I'm not disputing that the foul weather in Russia helped the Russians beat the Germans, or that it helped the Finns beat up the Russians. What I do object to is the suggestion that the mechanics of the game ought to be shifted in favour of one side or another to suit the historical outcome.

[Barrold]

Man I wish I had those hairy ducklike feet because it gets cold here in Michigan and they would be nice in Winter. Since I don't wear sandals in Summer, this would not present a problem.

On the other hand I could get all up in arms over something that is not even released yet and make assumptions about it that go against all the previous efforts BTS has been putting out so far, but that might be a waste of time and the stress induced might further decrease my lifespan.

BDH

[gunnergoz]

My two bits' worth:

This is a pretty fatuous thread to begin with. No where have I seen BTS demonstrate a propensity to favor one side versus the other.

What's more, an even moderate knowledge of history will confirm that weather is neutral and that it favors only the prepared while handicapping those who are not.

BTS can program a balanced game without resorting to lame handicaps and modifiers. If there are imbalances, they will probably demonstrate historic situations and events that we pretty much all know to be true. It will be up to the gamer to restore equilibrium by strategy and guile.

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Soddball:

And for god's sake, spare us all this waffle about how great the Finns were. If you were so bloody clever, you'd have picked the right side to begin with.

But we did that! And we were clever enough to stop it in time... Historically I don't think that we had much choice. Russia wanted to conquer Finland, and Germany was the best choice for an ally. Of course, I'm not that good in history, so correct me if I am wrong...

Otherwise I agree with you Soddball, Molotov's suggestions are pretty bad.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I just find it thoroughly wearing whenever a Finn claims that their nation should have better x, y, z, or should be able to fight better, harder, faster, or whatever. Tero, I have noticed, is particularly guilty of this.

If you have actually read my posts I have never claimed such things. That is just the popular belief brought on by me substituting the word "American" with the word "Finn" where I feel it is justified.

The American histories say the American x, y, z (like arty) were better (indeed the best in the whole wide world) and the American GI's were the ultimate examples of battlefield adabtability. Why shouldn't I be be allowed to state the same for the Finns ?

Or should I start calling everybody stating the US arty was the best a national biggot and a racist just for saying it ?

BTS are vehemently opposed to wholesale national modifiers. So am I. I, unlike BTS, am however a strong believer of the fact that there were fundamental (quantifiable) differences in the tactical and doctrinal training of each and every national army. The question is how to select the criteria. The German army was propably the best in the bussiness when it came to combat in the Central European style terrain in 1941. How much of that experience carried over and was even relevant in the vast expances of the Russian steppes, bogs, marshes and forests ? How much allowances should be given to troops who have trained in these conditions using tactics and doctrine specifically modified to suit these conditions.

I never said the Finnish army excelled or would have excelled in the open steppes of Southern Russia. Frontal assaults over open spaces were not performed if a covered route was found to a suitable point where you could breach the defensive line and roll it over from the flank(s).

I have no objections to patriotism, in its place, but trying to suggest that Finnish soldiers were invincible, or were supermen, is wrong.

Who is even suggesting such a thing ? The fact is the combat experiences of the men in the Finnish army adhered to some extent to the universal experiences as presented around the world. It is as important to acknowlegde also the fact that each and every army had different experiences under similar conditions and circumstances.

How do you think the Finnish army took out ~1200 Soviet tanks during Winter War with only about two 37mm AT-guns per regiment and no armour ?

The accepted general opinion is an mechanized force outfights a non-mechanized force hands down. In (say) 95% of the cases that may be true. How do you account for the remaining 5% and how you let it affect the computer modelling is up to the design staff. What do you do if you have examples of conditions that would generally give the mechanized force a hands down victory and against all odds the mechanized force fails.

I'm not disputing that the foul weather in Russia helped the Russians beat the Germans, or that it helped the Finns beat up the Russians. What I do object to is the suggestion that the mechanics of the game ought to be shifted in favour of one side or another to suit the historical outcome.

Ay, there is the rub. How does one define historical (or appropriate/correct) outcome ? All the signs, portents and precedents indicated the Red Army would arrive in Helsinki by December 15th, 1939. Again, in the summer of 1944 all the signs, portents and precedents indicated the Red Army would cut through the Finnish army like a hot knife, as it had done so against the better equipped Germans.

The überFinns did not lose one tank to the roving IL's during the summer of 1944. I'll be properly outraged when this happens in CMBB and I will promptly launch a campaing to remedy this ahistorical occurance.

[ February 09, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

In the autumn and winter of '44-45 American troops suffered a very high attrition rate from trenchfoot and frostbite. Most Americans fighting in NWE weren't familiar with the rigors and hazards of long-term exposure to the cold and damp.

I was quite amazed to find out the root cause for this was the preference given to ammo and munitions transports over the winter gear for the infantry.

By the same token, the basic equipment of the various armies which suffered from cold were not designed to perform in such conditions. Nor were the troops trained (or weened ) to be mindfull of such things as wet socks when the temperatures fall under freezing point.

To actually make a point here... I agree with Soddball that there really shouldn't be any favoritism with nationalities during the winter. The new 'fitness' quality takes care of simulating that point, not some generic 'superiority' modifier for certain nationalities under certain weather conditions. If you believe that the Germans aren't prepared as they face the oncoming Russians, then (as a scenario designer) reduce their 'fitness rating' to a level that shows their long term exhaustion, cold and malnutrition.

I generally agree. But I would not dismiss the feasibility of automatically stripping the Germans of the best fittness levels during the winter months of 1941-42 and to some extent 42-43. This is because while it may be said the Germans came off warm shelter to fight that particular battle they simply did not have the appropriate gear to make that fitness state last more than a few minutes in -20º x wind chill factor.

[ February 09, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[John Kettler]

I think that instead of increasingly heated debate here the modders should straightaway start collecting Eastern Front pictures of German soldiers wearing civilian gear including women's fur coats and even fox stoles for the inevitable winter '41 mod. This would be both historically correct and fun.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ligur]

I'm a bit beside the point here, but living in a pretty cold and windy place, I find it amazing that so many armies in the past have overlooked winter gear. I mean... Would anyone send guys to fight in snow and not supply them with winter coats and warm socks?

Hitler insisted its all over by winter so no gear is needed. Or something. When it was winter, and nothing was over, not much were done to remedy the situation.

Why the hell? Can anyone explain to me the tendency to send troops out in the cold and not equip them accordinly?

Heck, even during the Desert Storm SAS guys didn't get warm enough clothes and had to fight dying of exposure. Gahh. The quartermaster asked the blokes to STFU, "you are going to a desert damnit. Its hot in the desert."

[Eric Young]

Deadlock Before Moscow by Franz Kurowski has a great passage in it about when the Germans captured Velikiye Luki. Velikiye Luki was the end of the line for European gauge railroads into Russia and was a main breakpoint for people traveling from western Europe to Moscow. It was a "show town" for Stalinist Russia and had all types of tourist trade shops, folk bands playing music, and so on. It had large store houses of fur coats and exotic caviar for the tourists. When the German's captured the town they made good use of the sable coats during the first winter.

E

[Cogust]

Ligur,

The choice is not to send winter clothing or not, it's to send deperately needed ammo, tank, guns, food and fuel instead of winter clothing or not. And as the German rail capacity was very limited due to defferent gauge, long rail line, few rail lines and the presence of partisans they had to make some very hard choices of what to ship and to whom. I'd rather be out of witnewr clothing than out of ammo/fuel as one can alwayd improvise the clothing somehow (throwing snow balls at the Russians won't do any good and tanks don't run on water).

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Cogust:

Ligur,

The choice is not to send winter clothing or not, it's to send deperately needed ammo, tank, guns, food and fuel instead of winter clothing or not. And as the German rail capacity was very limited due to defferent gauge, long rail line, few rail lines and the presence of partisans they had to make some very hard choices of what to ship and to whom. I'd rather be out of witnewr clothing than out of ammo/fuel as one can alwayd improvise the clothing somehow (throwing snow balls at the Russians won't do any good and tanks don't run on water).

Of course all that plays a part... Reading one of Beevor's titles I somehow, still, got the impression that, partly due to Hitler and his attitude towards fighting a winter war in Russia, not all of the industry in Germany was harnessed to the total war effort in every aspect... For example decent winter clothing for troops who were sent to Russia of all places. But of course the logistical problems must have been immense after Barbarossa was launched and winter fell. But not even preparing for the problem seriously? Gee. Well, the allies had similar problems in the Bulge... As stated above by someone clothing went after ammo and fuel were supplied.

[Cogust]

Yes, that's more or less what I meant. The Germans didn't bother to send out their winter clothing at first (the war would be won in just a couple of months) and later on the situation was so desperate that they needed to send all the ammo/fuel they could to get the Typhoon offensive to go all the way to Moscow. After that offensive stalled, fuel and ammo became even MORE desperately needed to stave off total disaster. I read somewhere that several trains with winter clothes was stranded in rail depots in Poland and were unable to be shipped further east due to lack of locomotives (many German locomotives were severely damage by the freezing weather, more so than the German tanks) and due to the few available rail lines going east. So I think the winter clothes were available, but it was several thousands of miles from the troops though.

[WWB]

I don't think there should be 'national' modifiers WRT winter weather. Eric has a good point, it might well make sense to add a data field to the units for quailty of winter equipment.

Also, this only really matters in the winter of 1941. In subsequent seasons, the Germans were much better pepared, to the point that German generals thing the best season for fighting was the winter, because there were fewer places for the Soviets to hide and movement actually got easier due to freezing of the ground.

WWB

[illo]

(except Finland)

ROTFL!!!! You patriotic scum!

I thought most finnish people are quite reasonable in their posts..but well.

Well im from finland, but i can say i have cold in winter like every other human being. Yes i know what to put on if i go outside to -30C and want to stay there all day. But does it make me superhuman?? ...i guess not.

Yes I agree finns could mostly operate better in cold conditions because they slept in warm tents/korsus where they could dry all their clothes. It's better than being wet and freezed after sweating in combat. But all these things can be taken care of with good scenario design. (unit morale and fitness levels)

But anyway it is stupid to say FINNS were something different from other countries which should be treated differently in gameplay...utter BS. I'm sure that german troops with decent clothing, warm place to sleep/dry in fight as good as finns or soviets of equal combat experience.

...well im not any good writing this stuff, but i hope you got my point.

Terve vain...olkaa nyt ihmisiksi!

Jos jenkit kiihkoilee ei meidän tarvitse...eihän?

[Tero]

Originally posted by illo:

Yes i know what to put on if i go outside to -30C and want to stay there all day. But does it make me superhuman?? ...i guess not.

Of course it does not make you a superhuman. But after laying in the snow for 45mins of the 60min CM battle you will be in better shape than your guest from central Europe wearing what he has brough along. And after that battle you know that there is at least chance of getting into a warm half-platoon tent or korsu instead of having to sit by a huge fire in the open or having to squeeze in into a house in a village standing out in the middle of the steppe like a sore thumb begging to get shelled.

But all these things can be taken care of with good scenario design. (unit morale and fitness levels)

The standard BTS solution. The thing is I for one sincerely hope we do not have to set up ALL the battles, including and especially QB's, involving Finns in the Scenario Editor if we want to get the variables historically accurate enough.

But anyway it is stupid to say FINNS were something different from other countries which should be treated differently in gameplay...utter BS. I'm sure that german troops with decent clothing, warm place to sleep/dry in fight as good as finns or soviets of equal combat experience.

Of course. But I trust you are fully aware of the Finnish not-so-high opinion of the veteran German troops when it came to such things as noise discipline and suitability of the German personal gear to the prevailing terrain and conditions.

And I think you summed it up good: with decent clothing, warm place to sleep/dry in. When did the Germans get these in place ?

Terve vain...olkaa nyt ihmisiksi!

Jos jenkit kiihkoilee ei meidän tarvitse...eihän?

Kukas sen kissan hännän nostaa, jos ei kissa itse.

[ February 11, 2002, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I think that instead of increasingly heated debate here the modders should straightaway start collecting Eastern Front pictures of German soldiers wearing civilian gear including women's fur coats and even fox stoles for the inevitable winter '41 mod. This would be both historically correct and fun.

For the Winter War mod the "model Cajander" (civvies except for a cocard on the hat, belt and perhaps an ammo pouch supplied by the army) uniform would be a must.

[ February 11, 2002, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Cogust:

The choice is not to send winter clothing or not, it's to send deperately needed ammo, tank, guns, food and fuel instead of winter clothing or not.

It is interesting to note that the priorities seem to be inversely proportionate to the ability to sacrifice troops combat efficiency to the elements than to have them go short on ammo and fuel.

The Finnish army could ill afford the man power losses to the elements and was thus well equipped for the winter. Some of the bigger armies, notably the Germans, the US Army and the Red Army seem to have disregarded at some point the manpower losses to the elements so as to be able to maintain the ammo and fuel supply at the operational level they have deemed is necessary.

I'd rather be out of witnewr clothing than out of ammo/fuel as one can alwayd improvise the clothing somehow (throwing snow balls at the Russians won't do any good and tanks don't run on water).

I on the other hand would rather have the decent clothes and take the arms and ammo I need from the enemy. Admittedly it will be hard to pry the rifles off their frozen hands. There is bound to be some lying around anyway. Their ammo is easier to take from their pockets.

[illo]

there is at least chance of getting into a warm half-platoon tent or korsu instead of having to sit by a huge fire in the open

Unless you have your tents in APCs and you have crossed a bridge too light for em. We had to wait those damn pioneers 8 hours with no food and shelter in -29C. There i learned that sitting next to fire really isn't an option. It only wets your clothes and your back starts to freeze. Most men of our company were sitting by big fires they built and within few hours they were too freezed to stand up. Pathetic sight. I kept myself warm by cutting some wood for their fires and learned moving is much better way to stay warm even if you are very very tired. Earlier that day i had fallen through ice under snow(in some ditch). My clothes were covered in ice up to the hip So if i only sat there still i think wouldnt have survived those 8 hours. Moving kept me warm but didnt melt ice on my clothes but dry them from inside.