Your favorite WWII country to play

The only reason Finland was not conquered was because Stalin was more interested in reaching Berlin before the Western Allies. Don't believe the bullshit fifty-year old nationalistic propaganda about Finns beating the Soviets in 1944 - Finland lost.

Cool... complete lack of historical context. Germany had won the war if they had not been attacked from Russia. Germany had won if the Hitler would have invented A-Bomb in his sleep.

And those who have not visited Finland: Finland didnt loose the war. I saw Finnish Flags in Helsinki 4 weeks ago. And have to say: Finns did "beat" the soviets indeed. Like i didnt say in previous post I am not going to say that Finland won the war.

There is something else in wars that Losing and winning.

Sorry if I offended Villain, but we have to agree to disagree on this matters

OK ? (TIP: dont use Bullshit - word in these nationalistic... might offend someone.)

Bld message

Kasila wrote:And those who have not visited Finland: Finland didnt loose the war. I saw Finnish Flags in Helsinki 4 weeks ago. And have to say: Finns did "beat" the soviets indeed. Like i didnt say in previous post I am not going to say that Finland won the war.

There is something else in wars that Losing and winning.

Sorry if I offended Villain, but we have to agree to disagree on this matters OK ? (TIP: dont use Bullshit - word in these nationalistic... might offend someone.)

I'm sorry too, but I say it again - this is bullshit. And I don't care if I offend someone who is too blinded by nationalism to accept historical reality.

Finland sided with Germany in 1941 to win territories from Soviet Union. However, instead of gaining any, we lost all the territories Soviet Union wanted from us in 1944, including some 20% of Finnish industrial capacity and 10% of land. Territories like Karelia, which many Finnish people still want back. How is that not losing the war? Finland lost just as Germany lost WWI - not fully conquered, but beaten beyond any hope of winning.

Flags mean nothing. You can see the flags of Hungary and Romania in Budapest and Bucharest today, but both those countries lost to Soviet Union as well.

Heck, you can see the Flag of Iraq in Baghdad today, does that mean Iraq didn't lose the Second Gulf War?

In every war, there are only winners and losers (sometimes only losers). In WWII, Finland lost. Not as badly as some other countries, but a loss is a loss, and stupid nationalist propaganda won't change the facts.

-Villain

Kasila wrote:

But... as a side note. Finland and England are the only European country that was not occupied during the 2nd WW...

I guess that depends on your deffinition of "occupied"

how about.....Sweeden.....Spain....Switzerland....

Kasila wrote:

The only reason Finland was not conquered was because Stalin was more interested in reaching Berlin before the Western Allies. Don't believe the bullshit fifty-year old nationalistic propaganda about Finns beating the Soviets in 1944 - Finland lost.

Cool... complete lack of historical context. Germany had won the war if they had not been attacked from Russia. Germany had won if the Hitler would have invented A-Bomb in his sleep.

And those who have not visited Finland: Finland didnt loose the war. I saw Finnish Flags in Helsinki 4 weeks ago. And have to say: Finns did "beat" the soviets indeed. Like i didnt say in previous post I am not going to say that Finland won the war.

There is something else in wars that Losing and winning.

Sorry if I offended Villain, but we have to agree to disagree on this matters OK ? (TIP: dont use Bullshit - word in these nationalistic... might offend someone.)

Wars are determined by battles and the Russians lost this war battle by battle. They were ill-prepared, over confident with poor leadership that rushed thousands of men into ambushes and tightly defended bottlenecks. In many battles the loss ratio was 10 to 1 in Finlands favor. There was a particular line ( not Mannerheim) that was held throughout the entire course of the war despite numerous attempts to take it by the Russians. At one point a mere 30 men were defending and fended off a Soviet assault of over 2000. The soviet armor advantage was negated by issues with freezing fuel, fuel shortages, and very poor tank fighting terrain which restricted them to roads only. Not to mention that their officers were all green and literally reading their field manuals during battle to make tactical decisions for fear of being executed by Stalin. They lost this war in every way imaginable.

German radios were innovative in that the mic was affixed to the sides of the neck where the vocal chords were. This allowed the speakers voice to be better transmitted over the sound of the tanks engine.

It is called laryngophone, and it was used also by Poles (every tank with radio) and Soviets (from 1941 in all tank which have radio, which means not so many).
Noonone knows why France and Britain (till 1941) wasn't using it.
I have read once ago, that also Italians were using it.

Re: KAGE

First of all:

I also have German Heritage should I also be proud of that? I'm just being silly I know.
But I'm actually Canadian. More proud of that then anything from the past. I'd much rather play the Canadian 3rd army taking Cain then either Polish or Germans.
I'm just saying most people want to play their Heritage, and poland was a miniscule part of the war...in 1939. Yes they fought on after and were some of the best troops.

Well You could be proud of German, Polish and Canadian achievement, learning what was good and what wasnt in those nations history, I suppose...

See, I am mostly Pole, 1/8 German, 1/16 Ukrainian, 1/32 Russian, 1/32 Fin and I suppose I have drops of bloods of Hungarian, Sweden, Jew and Mongol. And I am not even living in Poland.
Is it matter? Nope.
You are right, that nation is more about feeling then ethnicity.

Sorry if I was patronizing, it wasnt meant to offend you in any way. I just have such a brute way of posting. Dont take it personally.

Yes they put up a great fight and didn't "officially" surrender until September 28th.

Well, the last big battle ended in 5 of Novemeber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kock_(1939)
Thats why it is settled down (also by German historians) that campaign of 1939 finished 6 of Novemeber.
And Poland "officialy" nor "unofficially" never surrender.
Poland just moved half of million of soldiers/technicians through Romania to France.
And after surprising fall of France, succeded to evacuate minor part of them to GB.

the air force was not destroyed on the ground? Yes it was....just because a some planes surrvived to fight on doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No it wasnt. Compare losses on airfield and in battle.
Most were dispersed before the war - it doesnt change a thing as Germans aeroplanes were technically superior. Even Polish really brute pilot training regime, cannot prevail technical superiority of Germans.
BTW, this tough training regime cause Polish pilots have been most trained pilots in whole Europe (countoing hours of flight per pilot), which was proved on 11 April 1942, when a prestigious aerial gunnery contest was staged within No. 11 Group RAF, the three competing Polish squadrons - 303, 316 and 315 took the first three places out of all 22 air squadrons, 303 Squadron coming first by a very healthy margin (808 hits, while 316 Squadron scored 432 hits, and the best British squadron 150 hits). As a winner, No. 303 Squadron received a trophy and official recommendation from Air Marshall Leigh-Mallory. Outcome of contest was so disturbing for British, that for the rest of war they never made another aerial gunnery competition.

Yes they destroyed nearly all of Germans Panzer I's......those tanks would blow up if you looked at them funny. They were meant as a trainer not a battle tank.

Actually it was not only PzKpfw I which were destroyed.

"The first dedicated tank destroyers were two models TKS Polish tankettes - with 20 mm and 37 mm. They suffered heavy losses during the Invasion of Poland before entering battles due to air bombardment, penetrating weak top armour. Only the handful of tankettes armed with 20 mm guns had a fighting chance against the enemy tanks; those who have such chance acted exceptionally well. In one instance on 18 September 1939 a 20 mm gunned TKS commanded by sergeant Roman Orlik destroyed three German Panzer 35(t) tanks. Such effetiveness persuaded Germans to design their own tank destroyers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyers

7TP-jw (Poland has them 133 in 1939) was arguably best light tank of these days, much better then PzKpfv II or BT-7, actually because whole effort/money of Poland was put into developing of only one model of tank (as Poland resigned from building middle 10TP and 14TP tanks, mostly due to bad roads and long distances of Poland terrritory) - similarilly just like arguably best middle tank of these days was PzKpfw 38(t), cause Czechs put whole effort to build only one model of tank (they have were preparing to fight around fortifications of Sudeten so they need slower tank with more durable armour - middle tank).

Adavantages:
-good Swedish 37 mm Bofors gun with very good Swedish AP shells allowed to penetrate armour of ALL German tanks and most Soviet, with an exception of KW and T-34 series
-two person in turret (not monopersonnel turret like in French tanks, which was main fault of their S-35 and CharB1Bis- as it is impossible to command, observe, target, shot, reload, communicate and read map)
-better Diesel engine (first serial built tank with diesel engine (1935), before Russian (193

, not to say German or USA), endurant to fire (because of oil, not gasoline like used in PzKpfv)
-radio (in nearly all, not like Soviets and French tanks, who were forced to communicate with flags),
-laryngophone (French do not have it, so they have to shout to microphone lol),
-exceptionally good optics (Gundlach periscope, + three hind-sights: LCz-1x30, wz. 37C .A., wz. 34 + viziers),
-good suspension (have You ever rode T-34? I have rode one, and I tell You it is a nightmare, mostly because Soviet tanks do not have good suspension nor shacks of seats - comfort was not for Red Army),
-good ventilation (You know why Soviet tankists love German tanks they sometimes overtake? because they do not have to vomit after every half an hour. Soviet tanks have not at all ventillation even on idle! Poor Soviets tankists were regularly strucken with choke-dump, poisoned with carbon monoxide, and they have keep a bucket to vomit - thats why they alway rode with all open hatches - which make them easier to destroy by lot)

Disadavantages:
-really poor armour - even PzKpfv I or AT-rifles could penetrate armour.
-could have better mobility, even if it has lowest groundpressure

They were so good they killed few PzKpfw IV (f.ex. near G?owaczów between 6-10.09) exploiting very good killing capability at long distance over German tank, since PzKpfw IV had much shorter range of efficient fire so has to close to target 7TP.
Actually 7TP could destroy every German tank from long distance before Germans could see them - that was the way of fight they were designed for, they couldn't let Germans get close - unfortunately, Germans have stukases and FO/liaison officers.

Germans repair all undestroyed Polish 7TP and (since field test in winter of 1939 proved it is better then German rivals) were trying to continue production, however they have to halt production because Polish technicians sabotaged production line and falsified plans in November 1939 (till then Poles hoped for fast offensive of France, naive). All German 7TP (known as Pzkpfw 731(p)7TP ) were used in Fall Gelb (even in elite 1Rgt of 1PzDv, whole 4rd company, other in 203 PzBt). After 1940 most surviving were sent to Norway, with an exception of one company which was left in France. At least one tank was used in Normandy 1944 (there is a proof of part of turret with gun).

Depends who you talk to, I've heard Historians say both sids of that coin. I guess if one horse charged one tank it happend....who's to say forsure.

Yes we can. Please read passage about WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry

France had more and better tanks.

More - yes, better - no.
Half of French forces were obsolete tankettes Ft-17, useless even for Poles in 1939 (Poland sold nearly all of them to Republican Spain during Civil War). Germans have got 1700 of them after fall of France.

I will have to dissagree with you here. Germans mostly used Panzer II's in France
they had very few Panzer III"s and IV's

True.

the Panzer II had barly better then a machine gun on it. 20mm I believe.
and 14 mm of armor....3 man crew.

True.
Well, armour has 15-30 mm, but since I have to google it, it doesnt matter.

the Char B1 had a 47mm gun. and 40mm of armor.....4 man crew. a far superior. dispite being slower

They were 300 of them.
They were unbelievable expensive - more then 20 times then PzKmpfv IV.
Mostly because most work was made manufacturingly - with bare hands.

It has even 74 mm gun, which was badly designed, as already slow and unmobile tank was meant to target this 75 gun by turning whole gun.

But again, it was one person turret. And agains one person was meant to command, read map, observe reload, target, shot and communicate. And if it was tank of commander of, say platoon, of course this poor offcier was also responsilbe for commaning other tanks.

Well if You do not believe me, maybe You believe wiki?

More important than the limitations in tactical mobility though were those in strategic mobility. The low practical range implied the need to refuel very often, limiting its operational capabilities.
(...) The commander not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the gun. If he was a small unit leader, he had to command his other tanks as well. This is in contrast with the contemporary German, British and Soviet policy to use two or three-man turret crews, in which these duties were divided amongst several men. The other nations felt that the commander would otherwise be over-tasked and unable to perform any of his roles as well as the commanders of tanks with two or three-man turret crews.

Whether because of this the Char B was in actual combat less formidable on the battlefield than a review of its impressive statistics suggests, is difficult to ascertain. In 1940 the vast majority of Char B1 combat losses was inflicted by German artillery and anti-tank guns. In direct meetings with German tanks the Char B1 usually had the better of it, sometimes spectacularly so as when the Eure on 16 May frontally attacked and destroyed thirteen German tanks lying in ambush in Stonne, all of them Panzerkampfwagen III and Panzerkampfwagen IV's, in the course of a few minutes. The tank safely returned despite being hit 140 times. The question becomes even more complicated when we consider that the Char B1 was not a very typical French tank as it had two guns and a radio. An additional draw-back of French turret design was that their cast turrets had no hatch in the top, forcing the commander to fight buttoned-up, resulting in a poor situational awareness.

I would add, that Char had to brought to battlefield on railroad train, becuase it needed refuel every 120 minutes of driving not to say after 18 hours of driving it has to change whole engine (and it wasnt modular).

And of course this armour has been riveteted.

I think that Panther was much better tank then Tiger II, cause it was more mobile, more efficient and cheaper to build. And I am not the only one.

CharB1Bis was just such a overpayed monster, while France would do better if they just produce S-35.
Not to say, they were only nation who were produces serie of supertanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_2C

And were planning to produce another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_G1

Kind a like Hitler obsession. Must have something with complexes of anatomy.

The only reason the Germans won was because of superiour tactics...thats it

Yes they have genious tactics. But it want only reason they won.
France HQ failed on strategical level (just like Polish, British, Italian and Soviet so no worry).Find out stupidity of Dyle Plan.

It was a gamble by Hitler to even invade France at that time.
Germany was not ready....unfortunatly neither was France.

Agree.

Regards
______________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Friends form Finland

Even if Finalnd lost war (as Fins felt this day when they had to sign treaty with Soviet), they saved souverignity adn their elite werent killed, like other Eastern European states, who were de facto decapacitated.
And I can assure You, that every nation in Eastern Europe from 1939 till 1990 would gladly change with Finland.

So it was a rather pyrrhic victory for USSR, thanks to genious of Mannerheim, Father Frost and great spirit and courage of people of Finland.

Hakkaa päälle!

Shane Meehan wrote:Wars are determined by battles and the Russians lost this war battle by battle. They were ill-prepared, over confident with poor leadership that rushed thousands of men into ambushes and tightly defended bottlenecks. In many battles the loss ratio was 10 to 1 in Finlands favor. There was a particular line ( not Mannerheim) that was held throughout the entire course of the war despite numerous attempts to take it by the Russians. At one point a mere 30 men were defending and fended off a Soviet assault of over 2000. The soviet armor advantage was negated by issues with freezing fuel, fuel shortages, and very poor tank fighting terrain which restricted them to roads only. Not to mention that their officers were all green and literally reading their field manuals during battle to make tactical decisions for fear of being executed by Stalin. They lost this war in every way imaginable.

Umm, what war exactly are you talking about? We were talking about the so-called Continuation War that lasted from 1941 to 1944, where Finland was the attacker at the side of Germany. Most of the fighting was done during the summers and Finland lost many crucial battles near the end, forcing Finland to sue for peace in September 1944. This is the war that Finland lost. Read more at Wikipedia.

You seem to be talking about the Winter War, which was a separate little conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union during the winter of 1939-1940 and which is generally considered not part of WWII. There we Finns arguable fought for a draw, but as said, this war had very little to do with the actual result of WWII from Finnish or Soviet point of view.

-Villain

Umpapa wrote:Re: Friends form Finland

Even if Finalnd lost war (as Fins felt this day when they had to sign treaty with Soviet), they saved souverignity adn their elite werent killed, like other Eastern European states, who were de facto decapacitated.
And I can assure You, that every nation in Eastern Europe from 1939 till 1990 would gladly change with Finland.

So it was a rather pyrrhic victory for USSR, thanks to genious of Mannerheim, Father Frost and great spirit and courage of people of Finland.

True. I have absolutely nothing to say against this interpretation - Finland fought well and kept its independence, despite losing the war. As I said before, things could have been much worse around here in 1944.

It's just the blind acceptance of erroneous historical interpretation that stems from stupid nationalistic pride rearing its ugly head time and again here in Finland, which annoys me greatly. Finland lost large land-areas, was forced to disband political organizations and imprison political key figures (former president included) and had to pay huge war reparations. Only the losing side in any war has to do any of these. If we, the Finns, can't accept that we lost, it leads to the dangerous conclusion that we somehow were cheated from victory.

The same line of thinking after WWI in Germany led to Hitler's rise to power.

-Villain

Villain wrote:

Shane Meehan wrote:Wars are determined by battles and the Russians lost this war battle by battle. They were ill-prepared, over confident with poor leadership that rushed thousands of men into ambushes and tightly defended bottlenecks. In many battles the loss ratio was 10 to 1 in Finlands favor. There was a particular line ( not Mannerheim) that was held throughout the entire course of the war despite numerous attempts to take it by the Russians. At one point a mere 30 men were defending and fended off a Soviet assault of over 2000. The soviet armor advantage was negated by issues with freezing fuel, fuel shortages, and very poor tank fighting terrain which restricted them to roads only. Not to mention that their officers were all green and literally reading their field manuals during battle to make tactical decisions for fear of being executed by Stalin. They lost this war in every way imaginable.

Umm, what war exactly are you talking about? We were talking about the so-called Continuation War that lasted from 1941 to 1944, where Finland was the attacker at the side of Germany. Most of the fighting was done during the summers and Finland lost many crucial battles near the end, forcing Finland to sue for peace in September 1944. This is the war that Finland lost. Read more at Wikipedia.

You seem to be talking about the Winter War, which was a separate little conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union during the winter of 1939-1940 and which is generally considered not part of WWII. There we Finns arguable fought for a draw, but as said, this war had very little to do with the actual result of WWII from Finnish or Soviet point of view.

-Villain

My bad.

Winter War was hardly a draw though.

Shane Meehan wrote:My bad.

Winter War was hardly a draw though.

Well, like you said, Finnish troops won most of the battles, so in that sense Finland won.

However, Finland was still forced to cede large land-areas, which led Finland to side with the Germans in 1941 in order to reclaim those lost territories. That gambit, however, ended badly for the Finns and a complete disaster was only barely avoided in 1944.

Finnish triumphs in both wars (1939-1940 and 1941-1944) have been somewhat exaggerated in general histories, simply because no-one expected such a tiny nation to stand against the military might of the Soviet Union for as long as our grandfathers did. The truth, however, is that even though Finns won more often than they lost, in the end they were no match against the Soviet hordes. Paraphrasing what one of my grandfathers said (a variation of an old Finnish proverb): "One Finnish soldier equals ten Russians - but there were twenty of them for each of us".

To use a metaphor: You walk in woods unarmed and meet a grizzly bear that attacks you (1939). If you manage to escape alive, you can very well say you were victorious, even though you lost lots of blood and it clawed out one of your eyes (1940, end of Winter War). However, the next week you go hunt the bear with your friends, armed to the teeth with clubs and spears (1941) - and after you beat the bear for a while, it eventually eats your buddies and rips your arm of (1944, end of Continuation War). Once again, you manage to escape alive, but this time you are even weaker, and calming the wounded beast requires you to feed half of your cattle to it.

Finland survived its two confrontations with the Russian bear, but lost both an eye and an arm, plus lots of blood. The bear was the only winner.

-Villain