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

[Tero]

Originally posted by illo:

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.

Just goes to show how horses are better than mechanized transports under certain conditions. Even when the conditions generally favour the mechanized transports

There i learned that sitting next to fire really isn't an option.

Apart from your experiences: under actual combat conditions an open fire is the pits. Ruins your night vision and broadcasts your position to anybody within visual range. And you may not be able to move around.

My clothes were covered in ice up to the hip

Funny how looking back those experiences make you laugh but at the time it does not feel all that funny.

[ February 11, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Blenheim]

Well, I am confident that BTS will manage to get this right, as always...

My take: what we'll probably see in winter 1941 scenarios is that the Germans get an army as chaotic as the Soviet one in summer, 1941. Plenty of system malfunctions, troops that do not behave as we want (just because they're exausted) and plenty of equipment bogging down and falling apart. The Russians will have more or less the same amount of chaos, but well, at least this time they are at tactical skillz parity with the Germans...

[mensch]

Oh look another, give the Finns and Russians better modifiers in Winter thread.

look people did you see the German players saying "ooh ooh can you make the British troops worse since they haven't really worked out combined arms tactics, and the Germans perfected it!! I find it unfair that players can use combined arms tactics with the Allies, when in reality they were very underdeveloped!"

[edited cuz of some damn url fix.]

[ February 11, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: mensch ]

[JasonC]

People often misunderstand just what is involved in "the necessary winter clothing". It is not like the Germans in 1941 were running around in Hawaian shirts. They wore overcoats and gloves, and were basically dressed as typical city civilians might in winter today in Europe, except for the helmets and hobnail boots. That just doesn't cut it, however, if the winter temperatures go to 10 to 40 below for weeks at a time, and if the men are out in the cold trying to fight.

What did the Russians wear, by contrast? Woolen long-johns and double pairs of woolen socks, fur or felt-lined boots, fur or felt-line mittens (not gloves - much warmer - the trigger finger was the only one "alone"), a regular suit of clothes, then quilted or fleeced parka-style jacket and snowpants, pile or fur hats, and a white camo waterproof over all of it. Then they also arranged for heated shelters, often just dug-outs with wood fires, rotating the men through them, and hot soup daily.

Even then, Russian regs stress the importance of rapid deployments before attacks, to limit the amount of time the men had to spend in the open before combat. They especially liked to move forward in the second half of the night, to jump off positions within a few hundred yards of the Germans. Because the Germans were mostly tied to inhabited places, needing the shelter and fires. Outpost duty was often skimped when it was quiet in the evening, and cold outside.

The Germans were able to stand it because (1) they defended, mostly from inside towns, villages, or small settlements (2) the soldiers improvised, used captured and civilian gear (like the furs others mention, and Russian boots off soldiers), wrapped any cloth they could find around their heads and feet, while (3) the Russians were trying to attack, and thus were far more exposed.

The Russians still suffered far fewer losses to the weather. Frostbite was epidemic in the German army in 1941, especially of feet (hobnail leather boots, wet from snow and going untreated, thin socks) and hands (ordinary cloth gloves rather than lined mittens). Incidentally, in the US army in the winter of 44-45, trenchfoot was epidemic (due to wet feet, not removing boots because the feet were blistered and would swell, etc). That is a sign of greenness of the troops. In both cases, these were not at all minor matters - non-battle medical causalties in winter matched battle casualties.

In Korea, where the winters were also particular cold, especially in the northern mountains, the US experienced similar problems. The initial winter gear was inadequate for the conditions actually faced. It wasn't that none was planned - although the war did seem to be almost over in the late fall of 1950, with UN forces advancing to the Chinese border and the North Koreans in full collapse.

But when the Chinese came over the border, they made particular use of infiltration through the high ground. The UN forces therefore had to go up on the mountainsides to stop them. The same sort of winter equipment discrepancy existed, with the Chinese in fleeced or hooded, fur-lined parkas with mittens, and the US troops in ordinary field jackets with gloves. The Americans were also in worse physical condition, having become dependent on roads and trucks. While the Chinese marched up and down mountains as a matter of course.

Winter clothing that seems adequate to a civilian and peacetime imagination is not at all sufficient for military campaigning in the open, in extreme continental winter conditions. The right standard is the typical equipment of mountaineers. Not the winter fashion section of a city men's store, but North Face. This is not so obvious as some seem to think it should have been.

It is also worth mentioning weather variation. The winter of 41-42 was one of the coldest on record, going back 50 years. In Russia, the ground was frozen from mid November through March, with heavy snow on the ground from mid December through February. By contrast, the winter of 44-45 was mild but wet. On the western front, snow that stuck around did not begin to accumulate until December 20, and thaw with rain came on February 1. The snow was only deep in the first two weeks of January. November, February, and the first half of December were wet rather than freezing. Notice that the US non-battle causalties in the 44-45 winter were mostly due to damp (trenchfoot) rather than cold (frostbite).

[ February 11, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by mensch:

Oh look another, give the Finns and Russians better modifiers in Winter thread.

look people did you see the German players saying "ooh ooh can you make the British troops worse since they haven't really worked out combined arms tactics, and the Germans perfected it!! I find it unfair that players can use combined arms tactics with the Allies, when in reality they were very underdeveloped!"

[edited cuz of some damn url fix.]

Except this here call for disparity is quantifiable and involves the universal effect of cold weather on all humans and how armies of certain nationality (and indeed citizens of certain nationalities) were better prepared for them than armies of another nationality.

The differencies in tactics and doctrine are far more difficult to put in perspective. The cold, hard fact is that at -25ºC x wind chill factor you either have the appropriate gear or you don't, as simple as that.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah but... We all know the effects of vodka on the circulatory system in cold weather and a truly accurate modifier would take that into account also.

[MikeyD]

I think BTS said no nationality modifiers, period, for any reason.

That doesn't mean that the equipment (mgs, tanks, trucks) will not be given a temperature effectiveness curve of some sort. I hear some of those Czech tanks REALLY did not like the cold.

[Smiler]

It seems to me the first step is to figure out how you want to model the advantage that cold-weather nations have. If it's simply a matter of more front-line troops in good condition, then scenario designers already have the tools necessary to do that with fitness, etc.

If you want to model some other effect, say something that affects the chance of a weapon jamming in cold weather, then I would still prefer avoiding a nationality-based adjustment, but rather added another variable (similar to fitness) that describes a unit's "cold-readiness". This is much more flexible.

Originally posted by tero:

Except this here call for disparity is quantifiable and involves the universal effect of cold weather on all humans and how armies of certain nationality (and indeed citizens of certain nationalities) were better prepared for them than armies of another nationality.

The differencies in tactics and doctrine are far more difficult to put in perspective. The cold, hard fact is that at -25ºC x wind chill factor you either have the appropriate gear or you don't, as simple as that.[/QB]

Agreed, but it doesn't need to be hard-coded as FINN=APPROPRIATE_GEAR.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I think BTS said no nationality modifiers, period, for any reason.

That doesn't mean that the equipment (mgs, tanks, trucks) will not be given a temperature effectiveness curve of some sort. I hear some of those Czech tanks REALLY did not like the cold.

BTS said no national modifiers that were actually other variables that were not national in nature but could be modelled in game terms. The remaining would require extensive documentation (rather than urban legend) to bring in.

An individual peice of equipment for example could be modeled with lower reliability if equipment reliability becomes a variable in games. But you are unlikely to get a -1 applied to all Germans because they ate Bratwurst in the field and a +1 to all Russians because they were dressed in uncarded wool underwear.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Yeah but... We all know the effects of vodka on the circulatory system in cold weather and a truly accurate modifier would take that into account also.

I hope you do know that from purely medical POV vodka is NOT what you want to drink if you feel really cold. The fact the red Army used it has more to do with force morale than the cold climate.

On the other hand I know of a few instances when the Red Army unit would stop attacking to booze up when they came across a cache of vodka (not that it would have been beyond a Finnish unit for that matter ). And at leasts once a field kitchen full of warm food had the same effect on the starved Red Army soldiers breaking out of a motti. They died next to the field kitchen with their mouths full of sausages.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Smiler:

Agreed, but it doesn't need to be hard-coded as FINN=APPROPRIATE_GEAR.

I wonder. Even the appropriately geared überFinns or überSiberians get tired. What kind of a combo of settings would be required to model extremely tired Siberians not particularly taken aback by the weather against extremely tired Germans who suffer from the cold to boot in the same battle ?

[ February 12, 2002, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The remaining would require extensive documentation (rather than urban legend) to bring in.

Lets take the unit basic state of preparedness to set up field accomodations (gear they were allotted, tools etc). How would you say that affects the units fitness level and how much do you think that basic state of preparedness to set up field accomodations varied between the different armies ?

But you are unlikely to get a -1 applied to all Germans because they ate Bratwurst in the field and a +1 to all Russians because they were dressed in uncarded wool underwear.

If that Bratwurst is frozen solid the amount of energy the German soldier uses to knaw through and diggest it is not covered by the amount of energy the piece of bratwurst contains. So the German soldier is still cold, stays hungry and gets indiggestion as an added bonus. In the mean time the Russian wearing his uncarded wool underwear are warm if hungry. Which of them would you say is in better shape for the upcoming battle: the hungry Russian or the cold German having to **** through the eye of the needle while trying to keep his MG from freezing ?

[ February 12, 2002, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[lcm1947]

Well that was enjoyable and interesting but I think you guys missed the man's main point. What do we call a food box? In America, if it's what I think you mean Cocktail, we call it a mess kit. Now you guys can continue on. Thanks for your time.

[SlowMotion]

SlapDragon:

"But you are unlikely to get a -1 applied to all Germans because they ate Bratwurst in the field and a +1 to all Russians because they were dressed

in uncarded wool underwear."

If the level of winter clothing had to do with how well troops could keep up their fighting condition in cold (not sure what kind of attributes BTS will be using), wouldn't the solution here be some kind optional rarity system, instead of using some hard coded number for all soldiers of same nationality? Using this in a QB you might get some units with good gear and mostly pretty bad. The opposite side might get mostly good gear. Maybe overkill, but probably closer to reality than assuming that all men even in the same battle had same quality clothing.

[Tero]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Well that was enjoyable and interesting but I think you guys missed the man's main point. What do we call a food box? In America, if it's what I think you mean Cocktail, we call it a mess kit. Now you guys can continue on. Thanks for your time.

No matter what it is called you still have to be able to heat the food in it. Otherwise the bratwurst will freeze onto it and then the soldier would have to eat the mess kit to be able to reach the bratwurst.

[Geier]

Originally posted by tero:

posted by illoBut 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.

I wouldn't touch anything designed by you involving Finns with a ten-foot stick.

Suggesting Tommis (tss) and BTS research isn't good enough for you only proves again that you are not after accuracy, you just want to live out your private fantasies. Which is fine, but why not let the rest of the world play with accurate and correctly researched data?

"Waaah! The Finns lost a battle! All finns were well-fed, well-trained and well-equipped and better! Fix, or do somefink!"

I'd rather stick with BTS and their researchers version of the simulation thank you very much.

Johan

[Ryan Crierie]

Why not do it sort of like Close Combat 3?

Have it so that there's an option that

you can apply to ALL units in the scenario

editor...much like fatigue, e.t.c.

WINTER EQUIPMENT

1. "Average Winter Clothing" - Represents

the Russians at the beginning of the war

and the Germans after 1942.

2. "Poor Winter Clothing" - Represents

the Germans in 41/42.

??????

Hmmmmmmm?

This way, you can easily and accurately

show the effects of the brutal winter of

41/42 on the Germans, because there

were a FEW units with proper clothing

in 41/42, such as the Luftwaffe ground

trooops...

[ February 12, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[Tero]

Double post

[ February 12, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Geier:

[qb]I wouldn't touch anything designed by you involving Finns with a ten-foot stick.

I am heart broken. But if you read my remark carefully I did say that I do not wish to use the editor to set up a simple hypothetical QB with historical OB's.

I have said also this before: what use is a QB feature if even the designers say the best way to set up a historical battle is through the editor where you can tweak things so that the set up is historically accurate ? Why not have all the switches available in the QB set up ?

Suggesting Tommis (tss) and BTS research isn't good enough for you only proves again that you are not after accuracy, you just want to live out your private fantasies.

I for one am waiting to see what they have found out in their research and how they have modelled it before I make any conclusions about it and its validity. So far we have seen mostly gossip, rumor and a few glimpses of things to come. The data seems solid enough.

I am confident tss and BTS have used best data available. But things like the cold weather are in the CM scope and there are far more factors that play into the various troop variables that may not appear to be in the scope. One of these factors is clothing, the variations in them between different armies are historical facts, not figment of my imagination.

Other factors are availability of hot meals and accomodation. All these directly affect the fitness of the troops and how fast it deteriorates during combat.

I would love to play as Finns with the fitness level perpetually set at the best possible level. But how realistic is that ?

So far tss, BTS or anybody in the know has not revealed what kind of a combo of settings would be required to model extremely tired Siberians not particularly taken aback by the weather against extremely tired Germans who suffer from the cold to boot in the same battle ? I for one think that both parties being exteremely tired is only part of the equation.

Which is fine, but why not let the rest of the world play with accurate and correctly researched data?

When and where did you serve in the Swedish army ? I can not believe the Swedish army has dispensed with the realistic field training.

Next time you go out please wear only an equivalent amout of clothes in the average, regulation Wehrmach uniform as of late 1941. Roll around in the snow, water and mush and instead of going in spend the night in the open. Do not light any fires (to simulate orders not to do so for fear of getting mortar fire). In the morning make an assesment of your fitness status. The repeat the test using the equivalent average, regulation Red Army winter uniform and instead of spending the night in the open spend it in a heated hut (posing as a heated dug out) Again, asses your fitness. Then redo both tests for a (say) week. Then report what you think about the effects of cold weather to the fitness status.

While you are at it you could dig up the losses to cold weather and related causes in the German, Soviet, American and the Finnish army. I promise, you will find that between 1941 and 1945 the Finnish army had the least casualties to cold weather in this lot.

"Waaah! The Finns lost a battle!

**** happens

All finns were well-fed,

As well as they could be in a state surrounded by hostile nations.

well-trained

A reservist army which did not have to alter its tactics and doctrine as much as the big armies had to from 1939 to 1945.

and well-equipped

Decently and adequately by 1941. In 1944 the close up AT was lacking.

and better!

Certainly not inherently inferior to any army.

Fix, or do somefink!"

I think you just ejaculated prematurely there.

I'd rather stick with BTS and their researchers version of the simulation thank you very much.

I hope the release version will be the only one there will ever be. If not then I will hold you personally accountable.

[Tero]

Double post.

[ February 12, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

SlapDragon:

"But you are unlikely to get a -1 applied to all Germans because they ate Bratwurst in the field and a +1 to all Russians because they were dressed

in uncarded wool underwear."

If the level of winter clothing had to do with how well troops could keep up their fighting condition in cold (not sure what kind of attributes BTS will be using), wouldn't the solution here be some kind optional rarity system, instead of using some hard coded number for all soldiers of same nationality? Using this in a QB you might get some units with good gear and mostly pretty bad. The opposite side might get mostly good gear. Maybe overkill, but probably closer to reality than assuming that all men even in the same battle had same quality clothing.

You can, in CM:BB, assign a unit a condition or status that related to its health as opposed to its morale. This would be the variable you are looking for, as it would address the issue of how beat up and exposed to weather a unit is.

[NightGaunt]

it always amazes me how long people can argue the same point, with no new information, aurguments, or general debate material.

it just goes

on

and on

and on

and on

and on

an nausium

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Geier:

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

posted by illoBut 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.

I wouldn't touch anything designed by you involving Finns with a ten-foot stick.

Suggesting Tommis (tss) and BTS research isn't good enough for you only proves again that you are not after accuracy, you just want to live out your private fantasies. Which is fine, but why not let the rest of the world play with accurate and correctly researched data?

"Waaah! The Finns lost a battle! All finns were well-fed, well-trained and well-equipped and better! Fix, or do somefink!"

I'd rather stick with BTS and their researchers version of the simulation thank you very much.

Johan</font>

[Geier]

Originally posted by tero:

When and where did you serve in the Swedish army ? I can not believe the Swedish army has dispensed with the realistic field training.

Then don't believe it. I have no interest in telling you more than I was a bit north of the middle of Sweden, winter of -87. Do some research and check out the temperature of that year if you are interested.

Next time you go out please wear only ... yadda yadda Then report what you think about the effects of cold weather to the fitness status.

Oh I forgot that only you know what it's like to be outdoors. You must hold exclusive information here. I really am sorry that you might not be able to set up a QB with tired but well-equipped Siberians against tired and ill-equipped Germans in a game that models the majority of equipment, troop types, nationalities and terrain of four years of conflict on the entire Eastern Front.

All finns were well-fed,

As well as they could be in a state surrounded by hostile nations.

[/QB]

[Geier]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

One of the most knowledgeable researchers I have spoken with on the subject of the Winter war, with a broad and very balanced view of the Finnish military, is TSS. In fact, I think the TSS is one of the things that will make the Finns in CM the best of any simulation yet -- not the characteriture that they were in SL.

Zactly. A broad and balanced view... Works wonders for good, accurate research.

Johan