Question about Finnish Pioneers

[Battlefront.com]

Hello folks,

Apparently the Finnish Army retained their prewar Pioneer doctrine learned from the French instead of converting to the German doctrine coppied by the Soviets, Romanians, Hungarians, and I think Italians. The difference...

French system - Pioneers were specialists not intended for general frontline exposure. Their role was primarily to clear obstacles/mines, deploy obstacles/mines, build/destroy bridges, etc. after the area was secured by infantry.

German system - Pioneers were "Assault Pioneers", designed to be used in the thick of the fighting. In other words, all of the same things as the French system BUT not necessarily after the battlefield was made safe.

The Finns, apparently, parcelled out their Pioneers during battles when necessary. However, they assigned as few men as possible, generally in ones, twos, or small teams. Not even in Squad sized formations (9 or 10 men per Squad).

This begs the question... should we be including Pioneer formations in CMBB for Finland at all and instead simply include 2 man demo and flamethrower teams?

Including Pioneers in full formations just because a player WANTS to use them that way is NOT what we are concerned with. What we want to do is make sure that we are not allowing Finnish Pioneers to be utilized incorrectly, knowingly or unknowningly.

Inquiring minds want to know

Steve

[JonS]

Steve,

I believe the scene on Endor in Return of the Jedi was based on extensive research into Finnish pre-war Pioneer doctrine. Watching that scene a few times should help answer your questions.

Regards

JonS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Kingfish]

Apparently the Finnish Army retained their prewar Pioneer doctrine learned from the French...

French system - Pioneers were specialists not intended for general frontline exposure. Their role was primarily to clear obstacles/mines, deploy obstacles/mines, build/destroy bridges, etc. after the area was secured by infantry...

This begs the question... should we be including Pioneer formations in CMBB for Finland at all and instead simply include 2 man demo and flamethrower teams?

This begs a bigger question...will Pioneers (Finn, German, whatever) be able to clear/deploy obstacles, destroy bridges, etc in CMBB? If not, then what mission will Finnish Pioneers be undertaking in the CMBB battlefield?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[snips]

The Finns, apparently, parcelled out their Pioneers during battles when necessary. However, they assigned as few men as possible, generally in ones, twos, or small teams. Not even in Squad sized formations (9 or 10 men per Squad).

This begs the question... should we be including Pioneer formations in CMBB for Finland at all and instead simply include 2 man demo and flamethrower teams?

[snips]

Steve

While I confess that I know not a skerrick about Finnish engineer doctrine, it seems to me that you will be needing to model small 2-3 man groups of sappers to show their use by the Russians properly, at least if the examples in TM-30-430 are anything to go by.

By the way, "Assault pioneer" in British usage means infantrymen who have received training usually in mine-lifting and laying, as distinct from Royal Engineers, who have a much wider collection of skills. It would be nice to see both types modelled if ever CM visits Normandy again.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS, guess it is nearing Star Wars release time or something, since this is the third refference I have seen today BTW, I would love to put Ewoks and Jar-Jar in a pit and see which one came out alive. Then I would stomp on it with an Imperial Walker!

Kingfish,

This begs a bigger question...will Pioneers (Finn, German, whatever) be able to clear/deploy obstacles, destroy bridges, etc in CMBB?

No. This has been discussed about 100 times already, and the simple answer is that this is outside of CM's scope. Complex answers can be found using Search

If not, then what mission will Finnish Pioneers be undertaking in the CMBB battlefield?

Basically, satchel charge teams for the most part, which can do all sorts of nifty things. Very slow mine removal (i.e. slower than what a squad can do in CMBO) is another one. Then of course there are flamethrower teams which have their (limited) uses. Basically, everything that a Pioneer/Engineer formation does in CMBO except acting as line infantry. At least that is the direction of my thinking at the moment.

John,

While I confess that I know not a skerrick about Finnish engineer doctrine, it seems to me that you will be needing to model small 2-3 man groups of sappers to show their use by the Russians properly, at least if the examples in TM-30-430 are anything to go by.

Hmmmm... I saw nothing in TM-30-430 that looked unusual compared to German doctrine. Germans also parcelled out their Pioneers for tasks, as I am sure all nations did. But, for example, Section II Assault and Defense of Fortified Zone shows very clearly that Engineers were deployed in large numbers. For example, each Rifle Company was to have 1 Squad of Engineers attached to it for mine/obstacle clearing.

The difference between this and the Finnish doctrine, as far as I can tell, is that on the whole the Pioneers did not engage in frontline fighting EXCEPT in small groups with very specific tasks. Unlike other nations, you would not find the Pioneers deployed en mas for more generalized combat duties. Since that is the primary reason for having larger TO&E simulated in the game, it causes me to think it might be better to leave them out. Otherwise people will use Finn Pioneer Companies and (shudder ) Battalions. Apparently that would be highly unrealistic.

By the way, "Assault pioneer" in British usage means infantrymen who have received training usually in mine-lifting and laying, as distinct from Royal Engineers, who have a much wider collection of skills.

Most nations in WWII that I have studied had such distinctions. For example, each German Infantry (type) Regiment had an oversized Pioneer Platoon. They were not heavily armed (no LMGs for the first 3 years of the war) and not backed up by heavy weapons. Instead, they were designated for "expanded" engineering duties in more or less "safe" environmental conditions. This is in contrast to the forces of the Pioneer Battalion, which was designed to be engaged in combat. And as the war went on, even more so.

The Romanians actually had three forms of "Engineers". The "Pioneers" were along the lines of German Assault Pioneers. "Engineers" were organized for more involved, non combat tasks. Like Royal Engineers, their skills were more broad and did not have a combat role per se. Then there were dedicated Road Engineers who were specifically trained and organized for building transportation infrastructure. Pioneers were organic to combat formations, Engineers to Corps level formations, Road Engineers Army and higher.

Add to this the fact that many nations had independent Engineer/Pioneer formations which were organized differently and utilized for larger scale operations.

All in all this is pretty specialized and involved stuff. Sadly, it is also under documented. Which is why I am asking about the Finns

Steve

[Tero]

A couple of ideas spring to mind:

Independent small teams: their designated task in CMBB scope would include mainly mine clearing, smoke laying and mg-nest/bunker/tank busting they would be parceled out in that manner.

Special "assault infantry" squad/company with the infantry element equipped (perhaps) with extra automatic weapons and "regular" demolition charges and integrated engineer team(s) in the platoon organization for specialized duties.

[lcm1947]

Just my stupid answer but they don't seem too important going by the amount or lack of reply posts so why not drop them and concentrate on something more important or that could or would be used more in the game?

[Kingfish]

will Pioneers (Finn, German, whatever) be able to clear/deploy obstacles, destroy bridges, etc in CMBB?.........No. This has been discussed about 100 times already, and the simple answer is that this is outside of CM's scope.

Then it appears to me that you have answered your own question, that of whether Finn pioneers should be included in the game at all.

If Finnish pioneers were traditionally used in tasks which fell outside of the scope of CM, then they too must be considered outside of the scope of the game.

[Agua]

Based upon your presentation of their utilization, it sounds like Finn Engineers / Pioneers should be included, but modeled only as "support" FT and Demo teams, with any effective benefit which inures by their special training over regular Finn FT/Demo (if there is such a thing) included.

[Auggy]

The only role I can see for finn pioneres is that they may be used by a desperate finnish army on the retreat and then the pioneres would only be a depleated platoon with maybe already having takin some calualties such as a 9 man squad only having 5 men at the start of the game if that is possible? Good Luck in trying. I would like to use them for mainly bunker busting purposes.

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Steve:

This begs the question... should we be including Pioneer formations in CMBB for Finland at all and instead simply include 2 man demo and flamethrower teams?

Here's an excerpt from the history of Finnish pioneer corps.

"One of the training branches noted above, namely combat pioneer training, made such a great leap between the wars that one can with good reason talk about its rebirth. It happened in early spring 1941, when a new basis was founded for new kind of combat pioneer action in our corps. Because of the shortness of the peace time phase, its practice and implementation took place during the Continuation War.

...

...one of our pioneer officer was allowed to travel to Germany to get acquainted with the training of combat pioneers.

...

The detailed report made from the course shows that some of the methods and equipment used by German combat pioneers were unknown to us: the training course of combat pioneers with different kinds of equipment, shooting pot shots from the hip, overrunning trenches with hard hand granades, martial arts (jiu-jitsu etc.), adaptation explosions, S-mines, bar mines, flamethrower tanks, methods for conquering concrete pillboxes, Sturmboot and its use."

The importance of combat pioneer and strike team training before the attack in summer 1941 is emphasized several times in the book. It would seem that the German doctrine was making its way into Finnish army.

Below you can find some additional excerpts from the same book. The first one is a general observation, the rest are from descriptions of pioneer activity in different sectors.

"Pioneer battalion was an operational unit of the branch, which was used both in pioneer technical tasks according to its special training, and as infantry."

"Pioneer Battalion 1, which was led by Cpt. V Nuottamäki, participated 24.-25.7. in a strike against an enemy formation which had landed in Luukkulansaari, losing one officer, three non-commissioned officers, and six pioneers in this maiden battle."

"When the pioneer units advanced together with leading units, they often participated in battles."

"The pioneer commander of group O, Cpt Lukkari, started to apply strike formations in our local conditions. Some experience about such action had already been collected during the Winter War, and in addition fresh training had been received in Germany between the wars."

"Participation in infantry battles, mine clearing, road repair and building bridges were typical activities also for the pioneers operating west of Jänisjoki."

"The flamethrower pioneer platoon of Pioneer Battalion 31 conquered the main building of municipal home of Paksujalka."

"Pioneers participated in infantry battles for example when the unit had to defend itself against counterstrikes."

"Due to the nature of the battles pioneer units had to participate in all situations created by defense and attack battles."

"The 1st company of Pioneer Battalion 1 participated as infantry in these fierce battles."

[ April 28, 2002, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

[Thomas Norton]

In light of what Kingfish asked, and the answer:

move the production resources someplace else.

Tom

[Battlefront.com]

Tom

In light of what Kingfish asked, and the answer:

Er... I did not answer my own question. The core of the question was if the Finns used their Pioneers in regular infantry roles like other nations. If I knew the answer to this question I wouldn't have started up this thread, now would I? And if the discussion doesn't interest someone, then they can kindly not participate. I for one am interested in this as it is not an insignificant issue.

move the production resources someplace else.

I find it rather sad that some people feel that a) something has to be German or Soviet to be worthy of discussion in detail and that we don't know how to budget our time and priorities. I can assure you that we are not all sitting around doing nothing unitil this answer is cleared up, so what is the harm in trying to get the game a little more realistic for a nation OTHER than Germany or the Soviet Union? Count how many threads talk about German stuff to the nth degree and smallest detail, then count the ones about Finnish forces. Don't they deserve at least 1/100th of our attention, or does historical accuracy only matter for certain nations?

Sheesh...

Steve

[ April 28, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

Nabla,

Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much to answer the question The refferences to combat are not unexpected as their use in combat is not in dispute. HOW they were used in combat is the thing that is unclear.

I am sure Pioneers were used en mas when there was no choice (like the mention of Pioneer Battalion 1) from time to time, as that does fit in with the little I know. But when an entire Battalion is employed in combat and only suffered 10 casualties in its first combat action... makes me wonder exactly how they were utilized. For example, were they they ONLY unit involved in that action?

I'm inclined to conclude that the Finns had a mix between their Winter War (and earlier) doctrine and German "Assault Pioneer" methods. That they did not deploy en mas into combat, but instead participated in combat in small teams to carry out specialized tasks during attacks. This would mean, in CM terms, making Finnish Pioneers limited to small assault teams. Heavily armed and having the potential to do "great things', but not great in numbers in any one battle.

Steve

[benpark]

I think having the 2 man team is a good compromise. Those that wish to make a scenario that includes the Finn pioneer would be able to, within the confines of their historical formation. Whether others "abuse" this option or not, I could not care less-I won't play those scenarios.

I am very thankful that axis minor countries are being represented, and the more depth of simulation to this woefully underrepresented (by wargames) the better. Imagine an "assualt on Leningrad" ahistorical scenario (though I prefer the historical ones) without a Finnish pioneer representation, or a desperate ad hoc defense by Finnish units. The wider the palate (within historical confines) the better. And thanks for asking, Oh Great And Wise Genie.

[James Crowley]

Steve,

Not sure if this is much help as you may already have accessed this site and it relates solely to the winter war.

The site is www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINpion.htm (and Finpion2.htm

Masses of detail on Finnish pioneers, weapons some battles etc. Haven't had time to read it all.

Hope it helps

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The core of the question was if the Finns used their Pioneers in regular infantry roles like other nations.

I'd say only when absolutely unavoidable.

A couple of typical Pioneer tasks:

- an infantry force comes across a defensive line made out of dug outs, gun pits, bunkers, pill boxes and perhaps minefields. They call in the Pioneers to help dealing with the obstacles and bring in required extra firepower to KO the tougher nuts they know or suspect need special attention

- an infantry force encounters armour (new, never encountered before models) their integrated AT assets can not deal with. This especially before 1943.

Conversly, the regular Finnish infantry had for example the skills and carried the (non-powered) tools to work timber so they could construct wooden bunkers on their own. The regular Finnish infantry did not need the Pioneers to perform "every day" task like felling timber for them.

In combat the Pioneers carried out specialized tasks mainly because they carried the extra Umphf and had the necessary demolition know-how and skills. During attack they took care of the obstacles and peskier bunkers and tanks. During retreat they would demolish bridges, possible FO locations (bell towers and high chimneys) and if they had time buildings the fleeing refugees did not have time to set on fire themselves. They also left behind booby traps and mines, both conventional and ones detonated by a timer (BTW: high power delay detonated mines and booby traps would be neat gizmos to have in CMBB. Please ?)

[Guest SnarkerII]

Maybe a nice solution is to make the Finn pioneers available only as half squads, with all the inherent limitations.

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Nabla,

Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much to answer the question The refferences to combat are not unexpected as their use in combat is not in dispute. HOW they were used in combat is the thing that is unclear.

That is true, if we're talking about the formations in which pioneers participated in battles.

First, what is clear is that combat pioneer activity was increased, and that combat pioneers learned new skills.

Second, it also seems reasonable that pioneer units participated in battles more or less like regular infantry only if no infantry was available for the task. When and if Finns had a choice, pioneers would be used according to their special training. During the Winter War Finns learned to appreciate these special skills quite a bit.

So if we want to limit the range of available units according to the doctrine (what Finns would have wanted to use in battles), larger pioneer units would probably not be needed. However, if you want to create a scenario in which pioneer units engage in a battle against ordinary infantry, that seems historically reasonable, although rare.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I'm inclined to conclude that the Finns had a mix between their Winter War (and earlier) doctrine and German "Assault Pioneer" methods. That they did not deploy en mas into combat, but instead participated in combat in small teams to carry out specialized tasks during attacks. This would mean, in CM terms, making Finnish Pioneers limited to small assault teams. Heavily armed and having the potential to do "great things', but not great in numbers in any one battle.

[/QB]

Seems reasonable.

[Battlefront.com]

James, thanks for the link. I've visited that site before, but since it concerns itself only with the Winter War the information presented must be suspected of being "outdated". It is amazing how much stuff can and did change in a year's time, regardless of the nation being discussed. As for the Pioneer info, it makes me more convinced that in CMBB Finnish Pioneers should be restricted to small team type units.

Tero, thanks for the information. Yet another voice for small teams vs. larger formations. No to boobytraps and specialized mines

SnarkerII, I think something along these lines would be accurate.

Nabla,

However, if you want to create a scenario in which pioneer units engage in a battle against ordinary infantry, that seems historically reasonable, although rare.

Yes, that is something to consider. In general we do not like to restrict things like this unless it is very, very rare. I will see if we can do something which would make Pioneer Battalions and Companies super rare, but teams not unreasonably available. If Charles can't code it up this way (I am pretty sure it is already possible) then the Battalion and Company formations will be left out of the game.

Thanks,

Steve

[Kekk1]

Hey, how about this? Will it make into the game?

A Finnish pioneer with the Suomi SMG with a flamethrower attached to it.

Or would this be too "gamey" ?

Cheers.

[Jarmo]

Hmm.. what in earth happened to tss?

He used to have all the info about things.

I've read one war diary of pioneer company (or was it a battallion), too bad it was all Winter war stuff. At that timeframe they could well have been represented by standard infantry.

They were called in line a few times, but I dont think they had to actually fight once. Not that it would have been an easy job, building bunkers under MG fire and stuff..

[Auggy]

A Finnish pioneer with the Suomi SMG with a flamethrower attached to it.

Awesome gun in my opinion but how practical was it in real life?

[Battlefront.com]

Kekk1, so THAT's what it looks like Thanks very much for the picture. I haven't seen anything but a description and some specifications. Not sure how effective it is nor how many of them made it into service before the war ended. In any case, we can not add this because there is no support in the code for a man to have more than one weapon.

Jarmo, thanks for the additional info. Looks like we are headed in the right direction. And I have *no* idea what happened to Tommi. He was helping out with the TO&E stuff quite a bit, I sent him some follow up emails, and no reply. Haven't seen him on the BBS either. Hope he is OK!

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tero, thanks for the information. Yet another voice for small teams vs. larger formations.

One more consideration: IMO there should not be conscript or green Pioneers, only regular or better. Even when playing with the lowest troop quality setting the Pioneers should be regular (or better). This because they are skilled specialists. Sometimes even contruction professionals trained in the craft even before they enter the service.

No to boobytraps and specialized mines

Can't say I'm dumbfouded by surprise at this statement.

SnarkerII, I think something along these lines would be accurate.

Half squads, sounds reasonable. Inherent limitations...hmmmm... they are skilled specialists, having them hit with default, built in morale reduction and other related penalties defeats the purpose and fucntions of the Pioneers in combat. I'd say independent HMG squads would make more appropriate refrence points.

Yes, that is something to consider. In general we do not like to restrict things like this unless it is very, very rare. I will see if we can do something which would make Pioneer Battalions and Companies super rare, but teams not unreasonably available. If Charles can't code it up this way (I am pretty sure it is already possible) then the Battalion and Company formations will be left out of the game.

Could you make the Pioneer stuff available for regular infantry in the editor ? That way you could use existing force structures and the designer could equip the troops with both infantry and pioneer stuff as needed.