Where'd the Finnish sissi companies/platoons go?

[Shosties]

Calling all Uebergrogs... I recently did a spate of QBs playing as Finns and infantry-only and they were a real blast. In 1941 you can purchase sissi platoons (insert cheap pun here) which pack quite a lot of firepower at short range because they are primarily SMG-armed. I developed a taste for attaching a LMG team to each platoon to give them some organic base of fire (maybe gamey and ahistorical, but hey!).

When I did a setup for 1944, also infantry-only and from an infantry division as before, they were gone. I find it a bit curious as the general trend (well at least for the Germans) as the war progressed was towards more use of SMGs. Is there a particular (real life) reason why sissi companies were dropped from the OOB?

[Keke]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Is there a particular (real life) reason why sissi companies were dropped from the OOB?

No there isn´t. PLEASE FIX OR DO SOMEFINK!

[Battlefront.com]

There were only three of Sissi battalions (all independent) at the start of the campaign. Two were disbanded in February 1942 and the third May 1943. As far as I know this was because the period of "Trench War" set in and the Sissi units were simply not usefull for such warfare. Instead they were disbanded to provide cadres for other units.

Steve

[Keke]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There were only three of Sissi battalions (all independent) at the start of the campaign. Two were disbanded in February 1942 and the third May 1943. As far as I know this was because the period of "Trench War" set in and the Sissi units were simply not usefull for such warfare. Instead they were disbanded to provide cadres for other units.

Sissi formations were disbanded but Sissi (long range patrol) units didn´t dissapear (my late grandfather served in one all through the Continuation War) and neither did Finnish SMG squads...

[Battlefront.com]

Keke,

Hmmm... our information shows that Jääkäri units were used for recon. They were heavily outfitted with SMGs, and sometimes consolodated all SMGs into one Squad. I don't want to doubt your word, but is there some documentation you can produce to show that Sissi units were retained even after 1943? Our sources say they were disbanded and/or used to form conventional units.

Steve

[TN]

I think that Steve's information should be correct. Separate Sissi battallions fighting as infantry were pretty much a Winter War / early Continuation War feature. I don't remember seeing any references to them late in the war, so I'm ready to believe they were indeed disbanded. SMGs were also becoming more widespread in regular infantry units by then.

However, the recon activities did obviously not cease. There were dedicated long-range recon units that were directly under the Finnish supreme HQ (Osasto Kuismanen and Osasto Vehniäinen, later consolidated into an independent battallion Er.P.4). Additionally, there were patrolling units on division, regiment and battallion level. For example, there might be a Jaeger / Jääkäri company in a regiment and a jääkäri platoon in a battallion that would be used as recon/patrol/shock troop and COs last counterattack reserve.

Understanding all this is complicated, because the organisation seems to have left a lot of leeway to individual commanders on how they organised and used their units, depending on their abilities and temperament. One famous regimental commander collected the best warriors of the regiment into his HQ supply platoon that in many other units was a collection of sad sacks. That way, he had a reliable strike reserve close at hand...

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Keke,

Hmmm... our information shows that Jääkäri units were used for recon. They were heavily outfitted with SMGs, and sometimes consolodated all SMGs into one Squad. I don't want to doubt your word, but is there some documentation you can produce to show that Sissi units were retained even after 1943? Our sources say they were disbanded and/or used to form conventional units.

Steve

[Sardaukar]

General HQ Independent battaillon 4 (ErP 4) certainly was existing in late war. But it was used mostly to action behind enemy lines and long range reconnaissance patrols. It was organized as battaillon 1.7.1943. It might be bit out of CMBB context though.

http://personal.inet.fi/yhdistys/kymenlaakson.ilmakilta/erp4.htm

for table of organization

Cheers,

M.S.

[Sardaukar]

Sissitoiminta (guerrilla/ranger action) also continued with divisional jaeger companies, which were responsible for patrolling and harassing enemy and counterattacks.

One of the most famous divisional jaeger companies was with 1.D, so called "Detachment Törni", led by Lauri Törni (later Larry Thorne, died in Vietnam War while serving with Special Forces, depicted by John Wayne in movie "Green Berets")

http://www.veteraanienperinto.fi/Kertomukset/sotilas/sotilas/jatkosota/mauno_koivisto/nuoren_sotilaan_sota_mauno_koivi.htm

has in finnish an interview by ex-President of Finland, Mauno Koivisto, who served under Törni in his unit. He says: "Olin ollut JR 35:ssä konepistoolimiehenä, mutta nyt jääkärikomppaniaan tultuani minulle annettiin aseeksi kivääri. Kaikilla muilla oli konepistooli." Translates as:

"I had been a submachinegunner in Inf. Reg. 35, but now when arriving to jaeger company, I got issued a rifle. Everyone else had SMG."

http://www.lauritorni.org/lauri19_65_2.html

says: "Divisiooniin perustettiin erikoistehtäviin jääkärikomppanioita, joiden miehistö valittiin vapaaehtoisista ja tammikuussa 1943 Törnikin määrättiin perustamaan jääkärikomppania 1. D:n käyttöön." Translates: "Jaeger companies were formed into divisions for special assignments/duties and whose personnel were chosen from volunteers. And in Jan 1943 Törni was ordered to form jaeger company for 1.D use."

Thus, even when so called sissi battaillons were disbanded, their action continued in divisional jaeger companies (their training, doctrine and equipment was different from line infantry/jaeger coys).

Thus, I'd still continue to have sissi squads in CMBB, since they were used through whole war.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Tero]

Originally posted by TN:

I think that Steve's information should be correct. Separate Sissi battallions fighting as infantry were pretty much a Winter War / early Continuation War feature. I don't remember seeing any references to them late in the war, so I'm ready to believe they were indeed disbanded.

IIRC sissi units did see a certain degree of action as regular infantry during the partisan pursuit engagements also later on.

However, days or weeks long, 30-50km running battles on foot with infantry-only forces in heavily wooded, swampy/wet terrain with frequent skirmishes and ambushes might be a bit out of CM scope.

In CM terms the late war sissi units might be considered to be in par with partisan units, only with the benefits of being regular army troops.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I don't want to doubt your word, but is there some documentation you can produce to show that Sissi units were retained even after 1943?

Maybe I should scan a picture from my grandfather´s military pass? He was a squad leader in a separate Sissi company at Rukajärvi region.

Although the game doesn´t need to model these long range patrol units, Finnish SMG squads in 1944 it really needs, since they had a major role in repulsing many Soviet attacks.

Tero, since your email address doesn´t show in your profile, please contact me if you want to take part in a project which has a famous American historian and the Continuation War 1944 (codename: Forgotten Battles ).

[Battlefront.com]

OK,

From what I am seeing above, we will not be making any changes to the unit availabilities. I was already aware of the "long range recon" units, and these are outside of CM's scope.

And I am sorry, but anecdotal information is NOT good enough. It is bad research because it does not put the small tidbit of information into the larger context. What was the structure surrounding a SMG squad? How were they employed? In what numbers were they employed? When were they employed? Etc. We need answers to these questions, otherwise the historical accuracy of the game will suffer.

As far as I can tell the three Sissi Battalions were in fact disbanded by 1943. Most of the companies that were part of those Battalions were used to form new units. 3rd Battalion was used to form the core of 15th Infantry Brigade, for example. Some independent companies appear to have been retained as GHQ troops and were deployed in specialized missions outside of CM's scope.

All Armies had specialized units like this and it is pointless to try simulating them all, so no special considerations for Sissi units should be given UNLESS they were fairly common and used in CM type battles.

Steve

[ December 18, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Keke:

Tero, since your email address doesn´t show in your profile, please contact me if you want to take part in a project which has a famous American historian and the Continuation War 1944 (codename: Forgotten Battles ).

Been browsing around the Dupuy institute forum, have we ?

Will do ASAP

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What was the structure surrounding a SMG squad?

In essence any and all squad in the Finnish army could and would become a SMG squad in the sence CM is handling them. Or rather they would and could turn fullauto heavy, even during an engagement, as needed. This is because the units would pick up automatics from the enemy (automatic rifles, LMG's, SMG's), they would be consolidated and concentrated from friendly units sometimes even from neighbouring companies. During combat the organization of a Finnish combat unit would be very (sometimes infuriatingly from the historical POV ) flexible. There are many examples about mixed companies (even from different regiments) being formed into ad hoc task forces during a CM scope battle. This means that if the CMBB was historically accurate any command unit in the Finnish force structure would be able to command any sub unit inthe force structure.

There were no special SMG squad as an fixed organizational unit. That is the problem. One work around would be to use the split squad command to reach a more historically accurate FP mix. Only that incurs penalties which IMO are too severe and unrealistic compared to the benefits and results gained.

How were they employed? In what numbers were they employed? When were they employed?

That is the very essence and in the very core of the Finnish tactics and doctrine. In defence a force was to hold on to the defensive position at the end of the battle at all costs and that meant frequent counter attacks to retake lost positions. In attack they were used to punch through and dislodge the defenders.

Which is pretty much what the SMG squads did in the other armies they were formed in formally I guess. In Finnish army there were no SMG squads as a separate organizational unit. All this is selfevident and natural to us Finns. But unfortnately there is very little or nothing in print since it is taken for granted any Finn familiar with the basics of the armed forces procedures (95% of the male adult population) will take the hint when the SOP is referred to in historical works.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

This means that if the CMBB was historically accurate any command unit in the Finnish force structure would be able to command any sub unit inthe force structure.

I would rather rephrase what you wrote as:

This means that if the CMBB was infinitely historically flexible any command unit would be able to command any sub unit inthe force structure.

The key differences are that what CM is now is not historically incorrect. It is perhaps historically incomplete, but that is something different. The other key difference is to remove the notion that this was only something the Finns did. This was not unique to Finland. There is a case I remember where a British platoon armed themselves almost exclusively with MG42s, Stens, and MP40s (something like every third man had a MG42!!). The Germans also practiced handing over all SMGs to one unit, which was formalized with some of the Volksgrenadier units.

But this is something that CM is really not set up to simulate. The data system is pretty inflexible and therefore we have to keep things pretty much "official" TO&E. The new engine will not have such limitations.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This means that if the CMBB was infinitely historically flexible any command unit would be able to command any sub unit inthe force structure.

That's what I said.

The key differences are that what CM is now is not historically incorrect.

But it is too strictly based on formalized and documented TOE and command structure.

It is perhaps historically incomplete, but that is something different.

I'd say it is historically too pure. The "big picture" approach is its strenght. But it is also its main weakness. Especially in these überFinnish borderline cases.

The other key difference is to remove the notion that this was only something the Finns did. This was not unique to Finland.

By no means. While there was no SMG squad in the offical Finnish TOE as such the "common knowledge" over here is that the official allotment of weapons for an infantry squad was a very rare occurance in the field.

http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/asetilkehitys.htm

The following figures reflect a closer truth to the number of weapons lost by the Finns and captured from the Red Army than the table showing the weapons situation.Note that even these figures are lower than reality, the Finnish weapons losses were a little higher, and more weapons were captured, but as the lost weapons were directly replaced on the field, it doesn't show up on any stats.

Finnish losses

Rifles 5 568

SMGs 476

LMGs 488

MGs 476

Pistols 168

AT-rifles 6

(Note that the majority of the Finnish weapons lost were from the front line, thereby being of the best quality.)

I have seen other remarks that do not exactly concur with this statement. They allude that any and all substandard, defective or otherwise poor weapons were discarded and replacements were taken from the enemy. And that these may or may not be included in these figures.

Captured weapons:

Rifles 33 637

Sniper rifles 88

Automatic rifles 3 012

Pistols & revolvers 396

SMGs 239

LMGs 3 076

MGs 1 768

AA-MGs 20

(also a large number of damaged weapons were captured, usable as spare parts.)

I have also seen a figure of 40 000+ for the number of captured rifles

Source: "Sotilaskäsiaseet Suomessa 1918-1988, vol 1")

From other sources I have gathered apparently all captured automatic weapons did not make it to the stats either (either not recorder or taken and lost again).

The same tendency continued during Continuation War. With the influx of PPsH in the Red Army it did not take long for it to make to the Finnish armory in substantial numbers as well.

There is a case I remember where a British platoon armed themselves almost exclusively with MG42s, Stens, and MP40s (something like every third man had a MG42!!).

The difference here is that was not propably the norm in the British army but in the Finnish army captured arms and ammunition made up for a very substantial part of the resupply and replenishment effort. It can be said a Finnish platoon armed with Suomis, Emma's (Degtaryev) and PPsH's would have been far more common than your example would have been in the British army.

The Germans also practiced handing over all SMGs to one unit, which was formalized with some of the Volksgrenadier units.

They would rely on the MG-42 to act as the fire base even with the SMG's out of the squad. And the Finnish army really could not afford having weaker FP by design units in its ranks. The SMG's were cathered to ad hoc stormtroop kind of formations but the arrangement was not formalized AFAIK in any unit.

But this is something that CM is really not set up to simulate. The data system is pretty inflexible and therefore we have to keep things pretty much "official" TO&E.

So how did you determine what the "official" TOE for the Finnish army was if the only concrete thing that can be found in print is the organizational bit while pretty much all the rest was winged ?

The new engine will not have such limitations.

Looking forward to that.

[John Kettler]

tero,

Since the aliens have apparently deigned to return you to Earth, would you please send me a turn so I can finish the RoW II Finals before RoW III starts?

Boris and I are done, save the accounting, and Fate and I have fewer than five turns left. Thanks!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

All Armies had specialized units like this and it is pointless to try simulating them all...

Er, does this mean no LRDG or SAS, etc. when we get to the desert? Or will changes introduced in the engine rewrite permit their inclusion in some form or other?

Michael

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

All Armies had specialized units like this and it is pointless to try simulating them all...

Er, does this mean no LRDG or SAS, etc. when we get to the desert? Or will changes introduced in the engine rewrite permit their inclusion in some form or other?

Michael</font>