Murmansk!

[Stefdragon]

How long have I been playing WIR? I used to play the Atari 800XL
version back in the '80's. In that version the Russian rail line heading North, just East of Leningrad and Lake Ladoga, didn't go to nowhere. It went to MURMANSK itself. The Finnish rail line heading North to it's West ran all the way to the Arctic. There was a massive swamp in the game between these two rail lines.
In one game after taking Leningrad against my friend as the Allies, I snuck some crack Finnish troops and German Armour in the Winter across that frozen swamp, cut the rail line, and eventually took MURMANSK, much to my opponent's surprise and dismay. You can imagine the disruption that would have caused the Allies. What would have happened to the supply chain of vital equipment the Russkies needed to win the war? Even if the Axis got thrown out of MURMANSK eventually, they would have demolished the entire facillity, as the Germans were so skilled at doing. What would the Allies have done to not stem the flow of supplies, IRAN? (Even the IBM version that came out in the early '90's was still way too quirky for me though). At any rate I was not happy to find that my precious MURMANSK was missing from any newer version. I always look back fondly at my daring attack, which is now impossible in even this newest 3.2 version. Oh well, C'est La Guerre!! Great game anyway!!

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by Stefdragon
How long have I been playing WIR? I used to play the Atari 800XL
version back in the '80's. In that version the Russian rail line heading North, just East of Leningrad and Lake Ladoga didn't go to nowhere. It went to MURMANSK itself. The Finnish rail line heading North to it's West ran all the way to the Arctic. There was a massive swamp in the game between these two rail lines.
In one game after taking Leningrad against my friend as the Allies, I snuck some crack Finnish troops and German Armour in the Winter across that frozen swamp, cut the rail line, and eventually took MURMANSK, much to my opponents surprise and dismay. You can imagine the disruption that would have caused the allies. What would have happened to the supply chain of vital equipment the Russkies needed to win the war. Even if the Axis got thrown out of MURMANSK eventually, they would have demolished the entire facillity as the Germans were so skilled at doing. What would the Allies have done to not stem the flow of supplies, IRAN? (Even the IBM version that came out in the early '90's was still way too quirky for me though). At any rate I was not happy to find that my precious MURMANSK was missing from any newer version. I always look back fondly at my daring attack, which is now impossible in even this newest 3.2 version. Oh well, C'est La Guerre!! Great game anyway!!

Count me in on the Murmansk observation. It would make for some interesting strategy on both sides.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Chairman]

Why not change entirely to another type of wargame, Fire in the East with a couple of extra buys and you can do what you want to Murmansk.:rolleyes:
But I also would like to see that little extra area of warfare to come back.:p

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Stefdragon
How long have I been playing WIR? I used to play the Atari 800XL
version back in the '80's. In that version the Russian rail line heading North, just East of Leningrad and Lake Ladoga didn't go to nowhere. It went to MURMANSK itself. The Finnish rail line heading North to it's West ran all the way to the Arctic. There was a massive swamp in the game between these two rail lines.
In one game after taking Leningrad against my friend as the Allies, I snuck some crack Finnish troops and German Armour in the Winter across that frozen swamp, cut the rail line, and eventually took MURMANSK, much to my opponent's surprise and dismay.

Its my understanding that the terrain and climate in the Artic circle there prevented large scale operations, especially mechanized forces, which is why we never saw armored units up there, just infantry, and not so much of that, just a few German infantry divisions prepared for the extreme conditions up there, along with the Finns. Am I wrong? I also suspect there may be some politics in this too. I'll bet the Finns didn't want huge German forces operating from Finnish territory. They may have been allies with Germany, but only reluctant allies. The only thing they had in common with the Germans was a shared enemy..

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

Am I wrong? I also suspect there may be some politics in this too...

From historic, geographic, and logistical perspectives, probably not. But hey, give me a break. This was back in the Stone Age of WIR. The 1.44 mb Floppy was KING. There was no Internet message board with legions of eager fans worldwide just waiting at their screens to answer or banter over every single WIR question that you could possibly imagine. There was no QUORUM of WW II History/ computer experts who could hold court over what "house rules" would prevail over what is written and allowable in the PROGRAM.
I was young and impetuous. I didn't know any better regarding "the politics" involved. If it was possible in the game and it helped me vanquish my opponent, then I tried it.
I was lucky. The weather and other factors played into my hands for a change. I took a big risk against a human opponent with valuable forces. I couldn't hit the reset button if things went all to Hell. In that particular instance it paid off (June 6th?). There would be many times I'm sure it wouldn't. Now isn't that in essence what any war which WIR simulates, all about?
WIR is a computer game which allows one to explore the vast possibilities that COULD HAVE occurred on the Eastern Front.
The most dangerous opponent is one whom you don't know what to expect from. If it's not supposed to be in the game, I would hope that it would eventually be written out of the program.
Until then, I'll see you all in "PBEM Land" someday and hopefully you will see what I mean...GRRRR

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Stefdragon

WIR is a computer game which allows one to explore the vast possibilities that COULD HAVE occurred on the Eastern Front.

I wasn't questioning your strategy basically, just trying to give a possible explanation why the latest WIR left out the extreme north. Maybe it was just an arbitrary decision by Gary because he assumed the far north was not important because little action took place up there, and in reality something like your strategy could have took place. Well at least major operations with lots of infantry, mechanized forces would be problematic that far north.

As for your statement above, this has caused some interesting, umm, "debates" in the past. Technically it needs an addendum, because WIR also allows things to happen that could NEVER have occurred in real life, one example is the current thread about the use of the Elefant tank destroyer. What should and shouldn't be allowed by the game has caused many a debate here.

[Chairman]

About Fire in the East and the fighting in the north, there could bee mechanized units but that would cost alot. FTE uses resource points to build airbases, fortifications, etc and for a set number of units in the north it cost one resourse to attack as well as the Luftwaffe.

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Chairman
About Fire in the East and the fighting in the north, there could bee mechanized units but that would cost alot. FTE uses resource points to build airbases, fortifications, etc and for a set number of units in the north it cost one resourse to attack as well as the Luftwaffe.

I'm sure you have a valid point regarding any Arctic operation being expensive. However the payoff of Murmansk would be huge. Even a raid to destroy it's facilities and/or supply lines would have been of tremendous benefit to the Axis, and would have caused the Alllies a major headache.
I'll tell you one thing though, if I was going to try to pull off a stunt like that, I would choose the Finns to carry it out, hands down, every time, especially in the Winter.
I've never heard of "Fire In the East", but I'll look into it, thanks.

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



I wasn't questioning your strategy basically, just trying to give a possible explanation why the latest WIR left out the extreme north. Maybe it was just an arbitrary decision by Gary because he assumed the far north was not important because little action took place up there, and in reality something like your strategy could have took place. Well at least major operations with lots of infantry, mechanized forces would be problematic that far north.

As for your statement above, this has caused some interesting, umm, "debates" in the past. Technically it needs an addendum, because WIR also allows things to happen that could NEVER have occurred in real life, one example is the current thread about the use of the Elefant tank destroyer. What should and shouldn't be allowed by the game has caused many a debate here.

Maybe Gary left it out because it was logisltically out of the question to carry on any large scale operation up there, and as you said about the DOS memory....
As to the house rules debate....I'm probably some sort of moderate.

[Possum]

Actually, at the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets had 2 whole armies (7th and 14th) + a reserve Front (Archanglske) assigned to protect Murmansk, and the Railway to Murmansk. Both of these armies were quite good, being trained in artic warfare. Also the 14th Army had the specially artic trained 1st Armoured Division attached, with over 200 artic modified tanks.
Unfortunately, the game engine dosen't give the Soviets a off map Front to place units in, so in the standard scenario, these troops appear as reinforcments in RVGK, over a period of several months. In my custom scenario, both of these armies start on the map, in the northern most hex row directly above Leningrad (7th) and on the Mumansk railway entry hex (14th).
On the Axis side, the Germans fielded several Artic warfare trained Armoured formations of their own, in the north of Norway. Notably the 40th Pz Abt with modified Pz-II's, and the Nord StuG Abt with StuG-III's

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Possum
Actually, at the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets had 2 whole armies (7th and 14th) + a reserve Front (Archanglske) assigned to protect Murmansk, and the Railway to Murmansk. Both of these armies were quite good, being trained in artic warfare. Also the 14th Army had the specially artic trained 1st Armoured Division attached, with over 200 artic modified tanks.
Unfortunately, the game engine dosen't give the Soviets a off map Front to place units in, so in the standard scenario, these troops appear as reinforcments in RVGK, over a period of several months. In my custom scenario, both of these armies start on the map, in the northern most hex row directly above Leningrad (7th) and on the Mumansk railway entry hex (14th).
On the Axis side, the Germans fielded several Artic warfare trained Armoured formations of their own, in the north of Norway. Notably the 40th Pz Abt with modified Pz-II's, and the Nord StuG Abt with StuG-III's

Mr. Possum:

I am flattered that you would respond to my post, and illuminate me as to the disposition of the Allied command that would discourage the Axis from attempting the strategy that I tried.
If I were Mannerheim, MURMANSK and it's rail line would have had a lot to worry about, especially with the morale and experience of the Finns.
I know this old Finnish WW2 veteran who still walks around my neighborhood in fatigues. He told me late one night over a number of cognacs that the Finns used to ski in the Winter over the Baltic to the fortresses outside of Leningrad and slit the throats of unsuspecting Soviets with these huge hunting knives which they were famous for. The Russians were pertrified of the Finns, especially after the 1939 debacle, which is why the Finns get such a high rating in the game.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Possum
Also the 14th Army had the specially artic trained 1st Armoured Division attached, with over 200 artic modified tanks.

What modifications to a tank do you make for arctic combat? I can think of special lubricants for extreme cold, but did they do anything else?

That arctic trained armored division is probaby the reason the Germans never tried any large division-sized panzer units of their own up there. The Germans were simply unprepared for cold weather combat, whereas the Soviets were.

[Nixuebrig]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



What modifications to a tank do you make for arctic combat? I can think of special lubricants for extreme cold, but did they do anything else?

That arctic trained armored division is probaby the reason the Germans never tried any large division-sized panzer units of their own up there. The Germans were simply unprepared for cold weather combat, whereas the Soviets were.

Yes, but i think Panzerdivisons were needed elsewhere more urgent, russia had enough, but germany was in need for every single one.

[Possum]

Hello Ed
Modifactions include..
Making as many of the components as possible out of STS steel, rather than mild steel or cast steel. Extra electrical generating capacity and batteries, to run the pre-start electrical heaters of the diesel engines. Some extra insulation in the crew compartment, plus electrical heaters for the crew. Specially treated Rubber capable of remaining flexable at low temperatures, and of course, special greases and lubricants.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

There could be a way to model the theatre of war, by somehow squeezing, or lowering the map (which may harm the hardcoded supply bases). I always thought that the inclusion of all of the Caucasus was a bit much, especially at the expense of the northern theatre of war. There were some actions that took place in areas just north of where the map cuts off, and indeed at least 2 German Korps in Northern Norway along with other Finnish units. What about the terrain? You could make most of the terrain railless, and possible use the swamp terrain to sap away supply and manoverability. Also, Germany cannot transfer armoured units north of Leningrad (unless the city is captured), so the armoured problem is not really a matter unless Leningrad has already fallen!

Murmansk is an important base, one of the few bases on the Northern Atlantic that could take in the massive amounts of equipment and supplies from the west. With this gone, so too would direct allied aid. I feel, for those keen editors out there, that this would be a valid option, and another possibility at winning the war by including more options for both players at waging it.

[Possum]

Hello Jeremy
Unfortunately, Murmansk was not essential for the supply of Lend-Lease to Russia. It was simply the most convienient point of entry to Russia to use. Remember that somthing like 25% of all Lend-Lease came via Vladivostock (on Russian flagged freighters, or via air ferry from Alaska), and another 35-40% came via Persia (The preferred route anyway, as this route was immune to the effects of weather, or enemy action). So the Loss of Murmansk would not have been the end of Allied lend-lease, It would have, at worst, simply reduced the amount received by about 1/3rd (And most of that 1/3 would have been equipment manufactured in the UK anyway.)

PS I tried to make a new map to include another 10 hexrows north, but alas ran into several insurmountable problems. 1) The Supply cities and off map connections are hardcoded to particular hexes. 2) The Port cities are also hardcoded to a particular hex, and so cannot be relocated. 3) There is insufficent slots avaliable to include the units that would be needed to operate in this region anyway.

PPS The inability of the Axis to meaningfully stop Allied Lend-Lease to Russia, was probably why the option to cut off Murmansk, was removed from the game.

[Stefdragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I always thought that the inclusion of all of the Caucasus was a bit much, especially at the expense of the northern theatre of war. There were some actions that took place in areas just north of where the map cuts off, and indeed at least 2 German Korps in Northern Norway along with other Finnish units. What about the terrain? You could make most of the terrain railless, and possible use the swamp terrain to sap away supply and manoverability. Also, Germany cannot transfer armoured units north of Leningrad (unless the city is captured), so the armoured problem is not really a matter unless Leningrad has already fallen!

My observations about the difference between the old version of WIR with Murmansk and the subsequent versions do not take into account the technical coding challenges that such an adjustment would entail. So, to you, the programmers of WIR, I apologize if I am causing you any grief in addition to what you have suffered already.

However, I have a very large Britannica World Atlas in which I have just applied a magnifier to search that region as to how the main Artic rail lines were laid in Russia. Finland, Sweden, and Norway (Of course these lines would obviously be even more critical as supply lines in the Artic to carrry out any military operations). The Russian line runs up to Murmansk and continues North and West right to the coast of the Barents Sea and a Russian town called Linachamari. Just to the West is Norwegian wilderness. The Finnish rail line only runs more or less to the 67th parallel, the Southern border of Lapland. North of that in Finnland, nothing. In Sweden, the Northen most rail starts in Lulea on the North end of the Gulf of Bothnia, and runs Northwest right up to Narvik in Norway ( Remember Narvik, military history students?) The Norwegian rail runs to Bodo on the Norwegian Sea at the 67th parallel. There seems to be no rail between Bodo and Narvik to it's North as the terrain looks quite forbidding.

I agree that much of the extreme Southern end of of the WIR map
seems to be a waste in the game, notwithstanding the Baku region, which made AH salivate, but was more or less tactically impossible to take. (Is there anyone out there who has taken Baku against the computer, let alone a human opponent, and held it? I'll never forget a picture I saw once of a German machine gun squad, standing on top of a Caucasus mountain, at the Southern most reach of the German Army.

In the old game, I think there were two German infantry Korps in Finnland but no German armour. As per my post at the top of this thread, you could not move any G.A. into Finnand until Leningrad fell. I would think that any move East, North of Lake Ladoga, would necesitate the taking of Leningrad. In the old game there was nothing but swamp hexes between the Finnish rail and Russian rail lines. Any Axis units, or visa versa, were certainly suffering substantial loss of supply as they moved away from their rail lines. Any attempt at taking Murmansk would be close to impossible, But the cutting or harrassment of the Russian rail line would have caused the Russkies a lot of problems.

[Montenegro]

Stefdragon,

This is more of a response to the Baku observation.

The way I see it, Baku is as vital on the map for Ruski as Polesti and Essen are for German player. These are the main oil centers that grease the wheels so to speak, and although it would be seemingly impossible to reach, and for that matter supply and conquer Baku, I'm sure some of the better players have attempted this with some degree of success. A neat "experiment" to run in the '42 scenario as German player is to attack the Cau region from the Crimea and from Rostov, join up, and form a long range bomber group to hit Baku. Against the AI, this is very possible since the weakest Red Air presence at the start of this campaign is in the Cau and Don/Volga regions. I highly doubt this strategy would work against an aware Soviet opponent, but if WIR offers anything, it offers alternative courses of action.

Murmansk probably brought in more SPAM than anything, but I agree that it would be interesting to expand in the North. I think there are other areas in the future update(s) that trump this one, though.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Stefdragon


Mr. Possum:

I am flattered that you would respond to my post, and illuminate me as to the disposition of the Allied command that would discourage the Axis from attempting the strategy that I tried.
If I were Mannerheim, MURMANSK and it's rail line would have had a lot to worry about, especially with the morale and experience of the Finns.
I know this old Finnish WW2 veteran who still walks around my neighborhood in fatigues. He told me late one night over a number of cognacs that the Finns used to ski in the Winter over the Baltic to the fortresses outside of Leningrad and slit the throats of unsuspecting Soviets with these huge hunting knives which they were famous for. The Russians were pertrified of the Finns, especially after the 1939 debacle, which is why the Finns get such a high rating in the game.

Humm, I just captured Helsinki in Dec 44 against my very capable PBEM opponent. His Finns were always a pain in the neck (sorry about the pun). I gave my guys the order to kill the women and rape the men, burn the city, send the kids to Siberia, shoot the dogs, etc. Darn Finns will never bother the Motherland again.

[Stefdragon]

I would tend to think that the '44 campaign is the only scenario
in which you would be able to take Helsinki with any certainty.

As to what happened once you took it, the classic phrase is:
"Kill the men, rape the women, and make soup out of the babies".
But your "orders" to your troops certainly adds an additional level of distaste so as to make it imperitive to fight to the last man as the Finns, or anyone else who would oppose you.