Relative Parity on the Eastern Front in CMBB

[Fionn]

Tero,

I was typing my response while you were posting yours so didn't see your post until after I posted mine but isn't it amusing that much of what you describe the Finns doing ties in with what I describe as weak points in Soviet doctrine and/or things the articles by the American officers describe as weak points?

The basics never change eh?

[Grisha]

5. You know guys, have any of you ever thought about getting together and putting all of this stuff down in a series of co-ordinated articles so as to build up a picture of the development and working of Soviet ( and other doctrines)? It strikes me that it would save us all a lot of trouble every few months explaining just why Soviet doctrine wasn't just all "walk blindly forward towards the Germans ". What say ye?

Funny you should bring that up. That's what I'm working on right now. Wanna help?

[Grisha]

Fionn,

I think what amazes me about NATO/US countermeasures to Soviet intelligence control is that it took them until the late '70s, early '80s before they realized what was needed. Now that's what I'd call a successful maskirovka operation

[mrcitizenkane]

Patton should have rolled his tanks through East Berlin to Moscow when he had a chance after meeting the Soviets in Berlin.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Redwolf,

LOL!!! It would be funny if it weren't so true .

Which posting was that about? Baxter or Manstein bashing or both?

5. You know guys, have any of you ever thought about getting together and putting all of this stuff down in a series of co-ordinated articles so as to build up a picture of the development and working of Soviet ( and other doctrines)? It strikes me that it would save us all a lot of trouble every few months explaining just why Soviet doctrine wasn't just all "walk blindly forward towards the Germans ". What say ye?

I am actually all for it. I'm writing some stuff for the thforums website, and there is nothing that improves my tactics more than have my writings been bashed by people who think I'm wrong. I am also very diappointed that the books I like are all out of print and/or burired under stupid titles.

Having said this, I just started on Soviet tactics, and mostly cold war area. But please mail me anyway, I'd like to discuss a detail on the Fionn short 75 rules and artillery.

[Keke]

The Finnish doctrine dictated that a defensive line should be in friendly hands at the end of the battle. More often than not this was acheived even if the force had to pull back later on. Of equally importance was the decision to gather the reserves to a location the Finnish army had chosen. If it had been fed to the front line piece meal to try and hold the first line of defence (or a series of defensive lines as required by the German doctrine) the results would have been catastrophic for the Finnish army.

Nice to see more expertise about the Continuation War, but there was one mistake in your writing.

The German defensive doctrine didn´t include retaking of the first defensive line. German High Command couldn´t care less about this, but the doctrine, based on eastern front experiences, was represented to the Finnish commanders during the war.

What happened was that the Finnish Army didn´t take it seriously either! So the result was that the delaying lines at Karelian Isthmus in 1944 were unprepared, and all the plans were based on the hitlerian principle that the first line of defense should be kept at all cost. This was evidenced by the futile counterattacks made by Finnish forces during the first days of Soviet offensive (4th Strategic). After the collapse of the first line became evident, the Finnish Army had to improvise 100km of delaying action before the VKT-line, which was now ordered to be the main defensive line. The succesful improvisation of this resulted in textbook adaption of the original German doctrine: 100km of delaying action before the main defensive line. And it was this improvisation where the Finnish Army distinguished itself.

[Keke]

Of course, now that Finnish forces were at a position from which they would not retreat, it's fortunate that a ceasefire was agreed upon. Otherwise, a Soviet assault from these new positions would've been no different than against the Germans. Do you understand my point?

Wait a minute! The position from which the Finnish forces would not retreat was reached 21st of June, and the ceasefire was signed 4-5th of September. Do you understand my point?

Haven´t you heard about the battle of Tali-Ihantala, the largest battle in Scandinavian war history

Some facts about the battle of Tali-Ihantala (22.6.-4.7.1944).

The battlefield comprises 100 sq. km.

The Finnish defender had 31 battalions and the Soviet aggressor at least 108 battalions. (50 000 men against 150 000)

At the focal point the five Finnish divisions were fighting against 12 Soviet divisions.

So the battle was larger than that of El Alamein, for example.

[ May 10, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Keke:

Nice to see more expertise about the Continuation War, but there was one mistake in your writing.

The German defensive doctrine didn´t include retaking of the first defensive line.

I was streamlining.

Hitlers orders did not allow any widrawals. Consequently any widrawal would have automatically been ordered to be compensated by retaking the lost ground.

The fact that it did not take place IRL too often does not mean it was not in the play book.

So the result was that the delaying lines at Karelian Isthmus in 1944 were unprepared, and all the plans were based on the hitlerian principle that the first line of defense should be kept at all cost. This was evidenced by the futile counterattacks made by Finnish forces during the first days of Soviet offensive (4th Strategic).

I think you are mixing purely tactical and operational/strategical MO's. The Finnish counterattacks were mostly purely local in nature, driven by the basic tactical doctrine established before the war. None I recall were driven by "the hitlerian principle".

The High Command ordered the lines to be held to trade time for space. Even a hours worth of delay in the Red Army advance meant so much more troops from North of Lake Ladoga or called up reservist could be mustered at the VKT line defences.

When the collapse was a fact it was acknowledged and the troops were ordered to pull back. Which I think does not fit the Hitlerian principles.

After the collapse of the first line became evident, the Finnish Army had to improvise 100km of delaying action before the VKT-line, which was now ordered to be the main defensive line. The succesful improvisation of this resulted in textbook adaption of the original German doctrine: 100km of delaying action before the main defensive line. And it was this improvisation where the Finnish Army distinguished itself.

With the one difference that counted: the Finnish army was relatively intact for the crusial battles.

[Grisha]

Wait a minute! The position from which the Finnish forces would not retreat was reached 21st of June, and the ceasefire was signed 4-5th of September. Do you understand my point?

Yes! I most certainly do, Keke!

I failed to notice the amount of time that had passed between the two. My apologies

Some facts about the battle of Tali-Ihantala (22.6.-4.7.1944).

You say this battle began a day after the line was reached? Very uncharacteristics of the Soviets in '44 to press an operation after meeting a defensive line in the exploitation phase, unless there were other reasons afoot. I've often wondered if Russian-Finnish relations could be compared to close, but often feuding relatives ... maybe nothing so familial, but you get my drift I certainly have no answer for Soviet conduct in such unfavorable circumstances.

Edit: It may have been politically motivated to force the Finns to sign.

[ May 10, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Keke]

Hitlers orders did not allow any widrawals. Consequently any widrawal would have automatically been ordered to be compensated by retaking the lost ground.

The fact that it did not take place IRL too often does not mean it was not in the play book.

Hitler´s orders were not the German doctrine. `The play book´ didn´t include any `stand fast´ orders.

I think you are mixing purely tactical and operational/strategical MO's. The Finnish counterattacks were mostly purely local in nature, driven by the basic tactical doctrine established before the war. None I recall were driven by "the hitlerian principle".

With "the hitlerian principle" I meant counterattacks to retake the frontline against superior forces, which leads to needless casualties. This is what happened during the first days of the Soviet offensive. They were local in nature, that I admit. Otherwise it would have produced a catastrohe.

The High Command ordered the lines to be held to trade time for space. Even a hours worth of delay in the Red Army advance meant so much more troops from North of Lake Ladoga or called up reservist could be mustered at the VKT line defences.

This was the improvised part I was talking about. Basicly the Finns had no other choice, but in spite of that the delay action was carried out splendidly.

When the collapse was a fact it was acknowledged and the troops were ordered to pull back. Which I think does not fit the Hitlerian principles.

Absolutely true. As soon as the scale of Soviet offensive was realized there were no `stand fast´ orders concerning the first defensive line. Just think what would have happened if Mannerheim acted in a hitlerian way...

[Keke]

You say this battle began a day after the line was reached? Very uncharacteristics of the Soviets in '44 to press an operation after meeting a defensive line in the exploitation phase, unless there were other reasons afoot.

I´ll help you with this one. When the first objective of the offensive, the city of Viipuri was reached, Soviet troops paused briefly and redirected their main attack towards the villages of Tali and Ihantala, because it provided the best terrain for armoured advance, and from there attacks could be easily directed towards cities of Imatra and Lappeenranta.

[ May 10, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Grisha]

Very interesting, Keke. I'll have to look further into this. Many interesting inconsistencies, especially wrt Soviet military art. Thanks to Tero and yourself for pointing out this operation. I'll need to find out the political angles as well.

[Fionn]

Ooh, a LOT to reply to here...

Grisha, I'd certainly be interested in reading what you've written and seeing what common ground there is for going forward.

Red, I was referring to the Baxter posting although what you say about Manstein etc is true also.

As re: the Short 75mm rules. I presume this is the 4.2inch arty issue you had some time ago but which I didn't have time to reply to at the time... I looked into it, discussed it with some other people and when I did the rule set rewrite ( yes, a major update to the rules will be released shortly ... say 10 days or so) I considered it and debated it with others. Suffice it to say that giving the Brits 4.2 inch arty whilst the Germans don't have 120mm mortars was, IMO and that of some others, unbalancing. So, I left things largely as they were in that respect.

OTOH I did go into "negotiated exceptions" to rules in some detail and I believe I mentioned this exception specifically. As all the best magicians say "All will become clear" when the ruleset goes live.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Fionn:

As re: the Short 75mm rules. I presume this is the 4.2inch arty issue you had some time ago but which I didn't have time to reply to at the time... I looked into it, discussed it with some other people and when I did the rule set rewrite ( yes, a major update to the rules will be released shortly ... say 10 days or so) I considered it and debated it with others. Suffice it to say that giving the Brits 4.2 inch arty whilst the Germans don't have 120mm mortars was, IMO and that of some others, unbalancing. So, I left things largely as they were in that respect.

Actually what I want to clarify amoung the websites publishing the rules is,

1) if they desire to include the British 4.2" mortars to say explicitly 'British 4.2" included, US 4.2" excluded'. Right now we sometimes see a 107mm limit which includes the way more powerful US module. I discussed lifting it to 120mm, which would allow German 120mm mortars and -more importantly- the British 4.5" guns, which are needed because of the broken 25pdr modules. But people didn't like it.

2) say whether 105mm VT is included or not. I came to the conclusion that this is the most powerful artillery module in the game. It may be desireable to include it to offset all the nice toys of the other nations, or not desireable because it is too powerful, but whether it is, it should say so explicitly.

I just don't want to run into a mess of unclear specs.

[ May 10, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Buckeye]

Hi Redwolf.

I can jump in here, because I'm one of the folks that Fionn discussed these points with.

Neither the Brit 4.2 nor Ami 4.2 will be included in the Short 75 rules. Opponents can always agree to modify the rules, though, so the inclusion of the Brit 4.2 is negotiable.

If I recall correctly, all VT is excluded, for both Short 75 and Long 76 rules.

Hope that helps.

[Skipper]

Few more factoids about the state of RKKA in 1941-42.

1. Between 1937 and 1941 it has undergone almost sevenfold increase in numbers. That alone would account for unusually rapid promotions in the ranks.

2. Practically the whole regular army was wiped out in the first 3-4 weeks, where earlier german mobilization meant 2:1 strategic superiority on the ground and total domination in the air (and the soviet pre-war doctrine relied too heavily on airpower for recon - something that is mentioned as a grave mistake in many divisional AARs of June-July 1941 battles). By 1942, it was very rare to have more than 1 cadre (pre-war training) officer per batallion.

3. Of all countries that participated in WWI, Russia suffered by far the worse (two revolutions and a very bloody civil war). In mid-1920s it started as an illiterate, very loosely controlled rural country with no heavy industries to speak of. Several million of people, mostly the highly educated ones fled the country.

4. As a direct consequence of all above, an average infantryman had 3-4 classes of primary education, and 10 classes of education would make one a highly educated person. Only 18-20 year olds commonly held that kind of education, and not even all of them.

So purges were a factor, but probably not even the dominating one.

[ May 11, 2002, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Very uncharacteristics of the Soviets in '44 to press an operation after meeting a defensive line in the exploitation phase, unless there were other reasons afoot.

Occupying the entire country has been suggested. But all Soviet sources claim that was not the plan.

I certainly have no answer for Soviet conduct in such unfavorable circumstances.

They might not have known the circumstances were so unfavourable.

Edit: It may have been politically motivated to force the Finns to sign.

Given the fact the first Finnish peace feelers had been sent out in late 1943 that is not propable.

[Fionn]

Ah, things become clearer Redwolf,

Ok, here's the way things stand:

1. I ONLY vouch for the correctness of the rules as posted at Rugged Defence. Many other sites copy the rules from there and post them. Most don't change them but some do. I have no input into these changes made by site owners and therefore my position is that if there is ANY doubt as to any rules then players must go to Rugged Defence and check what the rules there say.

2. That you sometimes see 4.2 inch arty allowed simply shows that many site owners are posting my rules, modifying them and then not letting anyone know they've modified the rules. This is a bit annoying since it makes some very simple rules seem very complicated. Anyways, the solution to this problem is to simply realise that the ONLY official rules are at Rugged Defence. If in doubt, go to Rugged Defence.

3. VT isn't allowed. The new ruleset is quite clear on this.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

Patton should have rolled his tanks through East Berlin to Moscow when he had a chance after meeting the Soviets in Berlin.

Well, except that the Soviets would have wiped the floor with Patton and his 3rd Army.

Grisha, Generalleutnant von Plato was 2nd Staff Officer in 1. PD during Barbarossa and became 1st Staff Officer in 5.PD towards the end of the war. he joined the Bundeswehr and ended up as Chief of Staff of NORTHAG and commander of the German territorial command. According to the introduction he got in Glantz 'Initial Period of War'. As I said, I am not 100% certain he said that, but it was definitely one of the German officers quoted in the book.

[Keke]

So purges were a factor, but probably not even the dominating one.

Did you know that there might have been a revolution against Stalin´s regime without the purges, led by Tuhatsevski and his Siberian army? Paul Carrell represents this very interesting theory in his book "Hitler Moves East". Really do recommend reading it.

[ May 11, 2002, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Grisha]

Thanks, Andreas!

[Redwolf]

Fionn,

the problem people try to fix by allowing the British 4.2" mortar FO in short 75 is that the 25pdr module is broken with respect to rate of fire. You need one third of a game to empty that module. It is practially unusable and given that the 25pdr was *the* arty piece known for its high ROF in WW2, it isn't historical either.

So people tend to allow the 4.2" mortar module. Otherwise people would play 3" mortars only, which unbalances gameplay and distorts historical exactness, the British weren't really know for heavy use of pup-pup artillery.

I kinda can edit the Fionn rules copy on tournamenthouse.com, so let me know when you have a final version. Thanks!

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

Patton should have rolled his tanks through East Berlin to Moscow when he had a chance after meeting the Soviets in Berlin.

Thank you for your incisive input. No doubt that would have solved a lot of problems later on. For instance, there wouldn't be a cold war. After the Soviets slaughtered Patton they could have steamrolled western Europe. Brilliant idea

[Skipper]

Speaking of Patton, can anyone say if below is a real quote from the guy?

QTE

We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I’ve seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I’ll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don’t ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.

We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism.

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese. From what I have seen of them I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russians have no regard for human life and they are all out sons of bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

UNQTE

[Skipper]

Originally posted by Keke:

Did you know that there might have been a revolution against Stalin´s regime without the purges, led by Tuhatsevski

Definitely, Stalin has recognized some serious threat to his power within the military in late 30s. Was it real or just potential? God knows. Either way, NKVD got carried away fighting this threat.