For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[KarlXII]

As Panzer has said, this thread is for comparing the Allied Armies and the Wermacht. I did this in order to keep the topic funneled into a thread, and not off topic in the other one.

Debate away.

[KrooK]

Ok but before we start we should divide it on historical periods. Its hard to compare army from 1939/1940 with army from 1944.

[Kagemusha]

In order to throw fuel to the fire. I would claim that Finnish army was the most mobile and manouvarable WWII army from the armies that were not motorized. Both in offense and defense, the Finnish doctrine was to use speed and mobile warfare to defeat the better armed and motorized enemy. From that, exellent example is that during the major offenses of the SU in end of both Winter and Continuation war, not even a single battalion size units were not cut of surrounded nor surrendered to Soviets.
In offensive. The Finnish doctrine was to avoid enemy strong points and surpass them, while attacking the second and behind support troops, with large flanking moves, by that the main enemy forces only had two options, either to dig in and get surrounded by Finnish or start retreating, which allowed the Finnish to attack them while on a move.
In defense, the doctrine was that it was better to loose land then men in operational scale, usually the attacking enemy was lured into exhausting its striking force to a long distance with rapid tactical withdrawals, delaying actions and when the enemy was spread along a large area and lost the weight of its attack, Finnish would counter attack the spread enemy forces with smaller and larger individual task forces from surprising directions, while aiming to cut of the attacking force completely from the main enemy supporting area and defeat it, which is called "motti" tactics.

Battle of Suomussalmi is a classic example of Finnish mobile defense:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Battle_suomussalmi.jpg

[CountArach]

Phear the mighty Australian army!

[Decker]

I have a question then.

Can anybody tell me the difference between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army when both invaded Poland? I've always been curious about this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ok but before we start we should divide it on historical periods. Its hard to compare army from 1939/1940 with army from 1944.

Early/Mid/Late?

For the Germans, I would say they were strongest in the early and later war. The Blitz was of course deadly in the begining, but towards the mid-war period the allies, especially the Russians, were figuring out how to defeat it. The German military of late '43 to the end was an extremely powerful fighting force, with new advanced tanks and weaponry, and the refinement of the Kampfgruppe. Of course, the absolute numerical superiority of the allies muted that.

As for Hill 262, it is not a good comparison of Polish and German forces. While it did show the bravery and fighting spirit of the Poles, it is hard to say that the Germans were anywhere near their normal capability. Hitler had just single-handedly destroyed the Western front by ordering them into an insane assault and they were trying to get out of the pocket as fast as possible.


In order to throw fuel to the fire. I would claim that Finnish army was the most mobile and manouvarable WWII army from the armies that were not motorized.

IMO, the Finns were far better at fighting than many of the major powers.

[rotorgun]

To the Allies, the main reasons for the early success of the Whermacht over the blundering Allied armies were not appearant at first. Although all the main players (France, Russia, and The United Kingdom) all had "Combined Arms" forces, it was their doctrine which not as well developed. In addition, the Germans made much better use of radio technology, for it was in the area of communications that they made the various arms work as a team. In all fairness, their early war AFVs were not really that superior to the allied vehicles. It was the way they were utilised that increased their effectivness.

As for the Allied and Axis minor countries, they were in much more dire straits. Hidebound to outdated tactics with largely infantry armies, poorly equipped and out-maneuvered (Finns excepeted, with the Soviets providing a bad example of combined arms tactics) by a much more mobile thinking force.

It's not that the German High Command was so much behind the new ideas either. Many commanders, Von Rundstedt for one, were very skeptical about the effectiveness of the Panzer Divisions. They were constantly worried about the risks taken by the practitioners of the new doctrine of exposing the flanks of the armored thrusts as they went deep into the enemy backfield. The vunerability of the flanks of the Schwerpunkt to armored counter-thrusts didn't occur to the Russians until late 1942 and early 1943, proving that they had indeed begun to learn the lessons of a mobile armored warfare. As Napoleon said "Beware of fighting you enemy too often for he will learn your tactics"

[KrooK]

As for Hill 262, it is not a good comparison of Polish and German forces. While it did show the bravery and fighting spirit of the Poles, it is hard to say that the Germans were anywhere near their normal capability.

I can't agree. Its just a myth that polish army was worse trained that German. France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg. It was just technological advantage of German army and more planes. In the moment when German lost advantage into air, blitzkrieg broke down.

I think hill 262 is good example to compare armies. On the one hand elite of German units ( I claim II SS coprs as elite), on the other elite of Polish units - 1st Armoured division (heavy type). No one had real air support ( I mean planes that attacked enemy positions) during that battle and both sides had tanks. Decisive appeared to be soldiers skill and low rank commander's orders.
I can't agree with opinion that Germans had to fight into not normal conditions. Its wasn't normal that polish tank division had to defend instead of attacking.

Anyway I think that polish army from western front was one of the best from allies. Relatively small (about 100.000 men) but with extremely high morale (no problem with deserters), count from high trained weterans (Poland, France, Battle of Britain, Atlantic, North Sea Conwoys, North Africa, Mediterran Sea, Italy, France) and with good commanders ( Maczek, Anders) - probably the only ones who really understood blitzkrieg (example - Italian campaign 1945 and chasing Germans after Falaise. Poles fought into places where rest failed - like capture of Monte Cassino or support given remainings of british 1st paratrooper division near Arnhem (without sacrifice of polish Paratrooper Brigade 100% of brits would be killed or imprisoned). I think that there were no army similar to that one - especially if we are talking about morale. And of course we had bear soldier.

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?
They were good when enemies did not know how to fight against them. They got some luck too (Singapoore) but in the moment when they had to face normal army with good equipment - they were all loosing due to archaic tactic and bad weapon (Japanese tanks were terrible). Example could be Guadalcanal and Japanese assaults - just a waste of men. In addition weakness of high command (lets be fair - their generals were idiots) and terrible war crimes commited by soldiers (Burma, China, Philippines) with full approval of their commanders.

By describing Japanese army I don't mean Fleet - there situation was not the same.

[Kagemusha]

I would like to raise a point. Finnish army lost about generation of men during WWII(largest conscription percent of any side fighting in WWII), Our forces are remembered from winter war. Now in the end of winter war Finnish army was exhausted, look at the end of continuation war as we call it, now the Soviets didint suffer anymore from the self created problems like in winter war, last 8(eight) battles during summer 1944,resulted in decesive Finnish victories,against mostly Soviet guard´s armies, which couldnt be stopped anywhere else?Why did this happen? And also after the Moscow peace treaty,the German army in Lappland was driven away by basically Finnnish conscripts that had not even seen fighting much at all before it?Can somebody please rationalize why things happened like they happened? London and Helsinki are the two capitals , from the countries that fought iin Western Europe that were not conquered during WWII.

[KarlXII]

I can't agree. Its just a myth that polish army was worse trained that German. France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg. It was just technological advantage of German army and more planes. In the moment when German lost advantage into air, blitzkrieg broke down.

I think hill 262 is good example to compare armies. On the one hand elite of German units ( I claim II SS coprs as elite), on the other elite of Polish units - 1st Armoured division (heavy type). No one had real air support ( I mean planes that attacked enemy positions) during that battle and both sides had tanks. Decisive appeared to be soldiers skill and low rank commander's orders.
I can't agree with opinion that Germans had to fight into not normal conditions. Its wasn't normal that polish tank division had to defend instead of attacking.

Anyway I think that polish army from western front was one of the best from allies. Relatively small (about 100.000 men) but with extremely high morale (no problem with deserters), count from high trained weterans (Poland, France, Battle of Britain, Atlantic, North Sea Conwoys, North Africa, Mediterran Sea, Italy, France) and with good commanders ( Maczek, Anders) - probably the only ones who really understood blitzkrieg (example - Italian campaign 1945 and chasing Germans after Falaise. Poles fought into places where rest failed - like capture of Monte Cassino or support given remainings of british 1st paratrooper division near Arnhem (without sacrifice of polish Paratrooper Brigade 100% of brits would be killed or imprisoned). I think that there were no army similar to that one - especially if we are talking about morale. And of course we had bear soldier.

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?
They were good when enemies did not know how to fight against them. They got some luck too (Singapoore) but in the moment when they had to face normal army with good equipment - they were all loosing due to archaic tactic and bad weapon (Japanese tanks were terrible). Example could be Guadalcanal and Japanese assaults - just a waste of men. In addition weakness of high command (lets be fair - their generals were idiots) and terrible war crimes commited by soldiers (Burma, China, Philippines) with full approval of their commanders.

By describing Japanese army I don't mean Fleet - there situation was not the same.

I think you're giving the Poles to much credit. The German army of 1944 was understrenghted, demoralized, and losing on all fronts. This wasn't because of brave Polish fighters, this was because of a prolonged conflict that stretched resources.


I think that there were no army similar to that one

No. Polish troops were eager to fight, and they fought well. But they fought against a dieing enemy. Its like fighting a dieing pitbull. It has a nasty bite, but thats the only one it'll be able to take. Hill 262 was the final nail in the coffin, and the reason the Germans waved repeatedly against FIXED ENTRENCHED positions is because they knew that.

I believe the Finns are deserving of being the best army of WW2. Standing up to the largest country, and encircling and destroying two of its divisions deserves recognition.

[rotorgun]

I would like to raise a point. Finnish army lost about generation of men during WWII(largest conscription percent of any side fighting in WWII), Our forces are remembered from winter war. Now in the end of winter war Finnish army was exhausted, look at the end of continuation war as we call it, now the Soviets didint suffer anymore from the self created problems like in winter war, last 8(eight) battles during summer 1944,resulted in decesive Finnish victories,against mostly Soviet guard´s armies, which couldnt be stopped anywhere else?Why did this happen? And also after the Moscow peace treaty,the German army in Lappland was driven away by basically Finnnish conscripts that had not even seen fighting much at all before it?Can somebody please rationalize why things happened like they happened? London and Helsinki are the two capitals , from the countries that fought iin Western Europe that were not conquered during WWII.

Here are some interesting points made in an online article about the Finnish army of WW2:




Before the Winter War, the Finnish and Soviet tactics had one thing in common. Both were strongly emphasizing the attack, aiming for the encirclement and destruction of enemy forces. The Soviet tactics were, of course, much more demanding in this respect, as were their resources bigger for executing such attacks. After all, while the wartime mission of the Soviet Red Army was officially the defense of the "Socialist state of the peasants and workers", it had adopted the policy of "moving every enemy attack from Soviet soil to the aggressors land". This way of thinking, combined with gigantic resources (both in men and equipment), a fast growing war industry, propaganda and the communist dream of worldwide revolution, it really was the most fearsome attack-oriented army in the world (before the German lightning campaign in France).

The Finnish Field regulations and battle manuals gave only guidelines and advises to various situations while the Soviet Field regulations were more strict and demanding. In other words, to the Finnish officers a high degree of personal initiative and independence was given and to the Soviet officers it was said to be given.

In the use of artillery, the Finns followed a strict policy of concentrating available artillery and the Red Army believed in the policy of dispersing available artillery to several units (at least all regimental and divisional organic artillery).

Winter and forest were regarded as allies by the Finns, whereas the Soviets regarded them to be hindrance for their operations.

Of course, while the actual/practical tactic on the battlefield usually evolves by unofficial literacy, experience, and by individual thinking and initiative, outside the official Field regulations, the leading principles remain. Even when radical changes are made during a war, the peace time "by the book" rehearsals have a prolonged effect in tactics.

It came from this link: http://www.winterwar.com/tactics.htm

I tend to agree with the last paragraph as the main reason for their success-initiative taken by a free thinking soldiery is a potent weapon in and of itself. It was sheer exhaustion which forced the Finns to sign a disagreeable peace with the Soviets. That being said, they were the one of the only Nations bordering the Soviet Union which wasn't occupied by them after the war.

[Conradus]

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?


The Japanese did have the highest morale imo in the entire war. Of course that didn't really help them in the end.

I'd have to say that the German army probably was the best of the entire WWII. They managed to conquer most of Europe in under 3 years. It's only logical that they lost, given the sheer amount of men and industrial power massed against them, and the stupidity of Hitler and other german commanders during the latter part of the war.

The Finns of course deserve an honourable mention.

[KarlXII]

Well, I'd give the Japanese some recognition. Tehcnologically inferior land wise, they still managed to conquer a large amount of land the years they were alive.

[rotorgun]

Here is an interesting link where you can take a brief quiz to see what type of army WW II army you would have likely preferred:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=194168

Here were my results, which I found interesting in that I am currently serving in the US Army National Guard, and have served as a regular in my past. I guess I have some "Limey" tendencies-odd as I am of French/Canadian descent. :inquisitive:


In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
94%
Finland
75%
Italy
75%
Poland
63%
United States
50%
France, Free French and the Resistance
38%
Soviet Union
31%
Germany
25%
Japan
13%

Anyone else up for the quiz?

[KarlXII]

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
94%
Finland
88%
Poland
81%
France, Free French and the Resistance
75%
Italy
69%
Germany
56%
Japan
50%
United States
44%
Soviet Union

Surprisingly, Finland was right behind.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You scored as Germany
Regardless of what are your political views, you could have made a career in German army. You believe in effective warfare by method of combined arms and superior military training.
Germany
88%
British and the Commonwealth
81%
Finland
63%
Poland
63%
Italy
56%
Japan
50%
France, Free French and the Resistance
44%
United States
44%
Soviet Union
38%

:book:

[rotorgun]

It seems that both SwedishFish and Evil_Maniac From Mars may have a Kamikaze death wish lurking in their deepest subconcious thoughts. You both scored 50% in favor of Japan. Is there some European "Code of Bushido" that compels the two of you? :inquisitive: :beam: As Mr. Spock might say....Fascinating

[KarlXII]

Is there some European "Code of Bushido" that compels the two of you? :inquisitive: :beam: As Mr. Spock might say....Fascinating

Must be the viking in me.

[Csargo]

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
81%
Germany
81%
Poland
63%
Finland
56%
France, Free French and the Resistance
50%
Soviet Union
50%
Italy
44%
Japan
38%
United States
31%

[KrooK]

Japanese army conquered big part of the world but...
1) there were practically no real defense
2) Japanse army had support from powerful Japanese fleet
3) morale were high but what is morale if commanders don't think

[KrooK]

I'm pround :)


In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Poland
Your army is Poland's army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you're also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Poland
94%
Finland
88%
United States
81%
British and the Commonwealth
75%
Italy
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
56%
Soviet Union
56%
Japan
56%
Germany
44%


And quite nice that Finns are high too :)

[rotorgun]

I found this curious site while looking for information about the Japanese Imperial Army (IJA). It's a copy of the actual handbook issued to the US Army describing the IJA. It's a pretty good read, and is a pretty objective look at them, this at a time when propaganda attempted to denigrate the performance of Japan's army.

http://www.diggerhistory3.info/japan/

While reading a Wikipedia article about the IJA, I found it interesting that France had a great deal of influence in the forming of the modern Japanese army and navy. I always thought that it was the British who they emulated. They also developed their concept of a General Staff from the Prussians. Both these facts would explain their emphasis on aggressiveness during an offensive (A French ideal), and the reliance on fortifications and defense in depth (A Prussian-like approach). Here is that link as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army

After reading these articles, one comes away with more respect for the abilities of the Japanese army. It was really the great material deficiencies compared to the US and its allies, and a tendency of rigidity that resulted in their eventual defeat IMO.

[Brenus]

“France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg.” Blady French, can’t trust them, I am telling you… Bench of cowards and liars, nothing more… Er, when France did produce this myth? (Books, movies, soaps, series, name them, I am interested to know what the Polish like you suppose I learned when at school: by the way, it was the Heroic Polish attacked on both sides…) Not to disturb you, carry on…:beam:

“Italian campaign 1945”: A Blitzkrieg, Italy…? :laugh4:

And the Gustav line was broken by the French (battle of Carigliano and Liri) because they had donkeys -named by the English the Royal Brele Force- (Tirailleurs Algeriens) at the price of 7000 casualties. The French won the battle the 13th of May and broke the Gutav Line on 12 km deep. The Polish took Casino the 18th.
“like capture of Monte Casino”: Again, not a denial of the heroism of the Polish soldiers, by the German Paratroopers evacuated Monte Casino (thank to the French, we are welcome) when the Polish took it. The Anzac and others didn’t attack in the same conditions…

I won’t mention all this if you hadn’t your systematic anti-French stance and again, I don’t deny the Polish heroism.:no:

The Finns were probably the best army during the 1st war.
Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc…

[KarlXII]

Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc

Shhh! The very name of the barbaric Soviets bring back memories of the genocidal attack on Warsaw in 1920!!!!

:2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Shhh! The very name of the barbaric Soviets bring back memories of the genocidal attack on Warsaw in 1920!!!!

:2thumbsup:

If Krook and I will ever be able to agree on anything, it will be the sheer brutality of the Stalinist regime.

[rotorgun]

This is an excellent source for an analysis of the German army's tactics, it is also an excerpt from an actual US Army WWII publication:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/FreeFiles/Downloads_Misc/german%20tactics.txt

It's a long, but interesting read that might help us all to have some information that will be useful to our discussion. It always helps me to have some sources to refer to.

[rotorgun]

Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc…

I have to admit, Brenus may have an excellent point. Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article that sheds some light:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army


Deep Operations

Later in the 1920s and during the 1930s, Soviet military theorists introduced the concept of deep battle.[12] It was a direct consequence from the experience with wide, sweeping movements of cavalry formations during the Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War. Deep Operations encompassed multiple maneuver by multiple Corps or Army sized formations simultaneously. It was not meant to deliver a victory in a single operation, but rather multiple operations conducted in parallel or successively were meant to guarantee victory. In this, Deep operations differed from the usual interpretation of the Blitzkrieg doctrine. The objective of Deep Operations was to attack the enemy simultaneously throughout the depth of his ground force to induce a catastrophic failure in his defensive system. Soviet deep-battle theory was driven by technological advances and the hope that maneuver warfare offered opportunities for quick, efficient, and decisive victory. The concurrent development of aviation and armor provided a physical impetus for this doctrinal evolution within the Red Army. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky stated that airpower should be "employed against targets beyond the range of infantry, artillery, and other arms. For maximum tactical effect aircraft should be employed in mass, concentrated in time and space, against targets of the highest tactical importance."

Deep Operations were first formally expressed as a concept in the Red Army's 'Field Regulations' of 1929, but was only finally codified by the army in 1936 in the 'Provisional Field Regulations' of 1936. However the Great Purge of 1937–1939 removed many of the leading officers of the Red Army (including Tukhachevsky), and the concept was abandoned - to the detriment of the Red Army during the Winter War - until opportunities to use it evolved later during World War II. At that time, the Red Army fought in major border incidents against the Japanese, in 1938 and 1939.

Essentially, once the German impetus was curtailed and the Red Army could introduce newer equipment to implement such a doctrine, that is what they accomplished. It was against such a doctrine that we trained when I was serving during the Cold War period. The idea of encountering such a force was intimidating to say the least-especially the thought of having to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a deep penetration.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

At the same time, however, we must remember that the German army was severely outnumbered, at a disadvantage due to Hitler's strategic orders, and generally weakened. In tactical battles, such as this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka) the German forces proved their superiority in training and tactics (the former of which also began to erode severely near the end of the conflict).

[KrooK]

Yep Blitzkrieg into Italy....
1) When Poles finally broken German defense lines into mountains ( I mean period after capturing Cassino and moron who did not use that victory), tanks made fast and effective offensive to the city of Bologne.

Yep - French myth....
1) When Poland lost campaign 1939 thousands of soldiers went to France and started forming new army. However French high command didn't understood how effective could be massive tank charge (with air support and into one small point) and were sure that German tank we so useful because of complete lack of training for polish soldiers. Thats why some really funny accidents happen when french istructor without war experience teached polish weterans how to shot.

French units broke paratroopers at Monte Cassino....
1) French units (Berbers) flanked Germans but their attack was stopped because...
According to French sources your soldiers raped every Italian woman around.

2) Paratroopers withdraw from Cassino but not only because of French soldiers flanking them. 17 th may Paratropeers defense became broken. If they did not withdraw, they would be defeated into few days. And do not forget about brits and americans who broke through Liri Valley


Best Army was Red Army....
Do not mix army with soldiers. Russian soldiers really believed that they are defending their country. Thats why they were fighting with great heroism. However whole army was much, much worse than German, American or British one. Weak high command, archaic tactic, complete lack of cooperation beetwen field army and air support (why do you think Russians need so many art - their units did not cooperate with planes at all), NKWD, murdering of prisoners of war and lack of respect for soldiers blood (you should read orders given to russian soldiers). Check stats - Russian won campaign but how many of them died for one German soldier?

[rotorgun]

At the same time, however, we must remember that the German army was severely outnumbered, at a disadvantage due to Hitler's strategic orders, and generally weakened. In tactical battles, such as this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka) the German forces proved their superiority in training and tactics (the former of which also began to erode severely near the end of the conflict).

One of the areas where the German Army was consistently superior than many others was in battlefield recovery of their damaged equipment. As long as they could retain possession of the battlefield at the end of the battle, they were able to recover their repairable vehicles. Once in the hands of their capable forward repair depots, many of these vehicles were returned to service in a reasonably short time. I read a book about the Battle of Kursk that showed the strength returns for both German Panzer Divisions involved before, after, and then within two weeks or so of Prokhorovka,. Almost all of their losses were made good (although the trained crewmen lost were lost for good), and they were nearly at full strength. The Soviet units were in considerably worst shape, and took much longer to recover.

Of course, the Red Army would just rotate more units to the front which the Germans could not. Attrition is what really hurt the Germans in the long run. The Soviets never really achieved complete tactical and technical parity with the Heer, and their logistical services never even came close. Pound for pound, the German Army was a tough nut to crack.

[rotorgun]

Here is some fascinating information about the make up of Polish forces that fought in the West after the fall of Poland.


Polish Armed Forces in the West
at the height of their power
Deserters from the German Wehrmacht 89,300 (35.8%)
Evacuees from the USSR in 1941 83,000 (33.7%)
Evacuees from France in 1940 35,000 (14.0%)
Liberated POWs 21,750 (8.7%)
Escapees from occupied Europe 14,210 (5.7%)
Recruits in liberated France 7,000 (2.8%)
Polonia from Argentina, Brazil and Canada 2,290 (0.9%)
Polonia from United Kingdom 1,780 (0.7%)
Total 249,000
Note: Until July 1945, when recruitment was halted, some 26,830 Polish soldiers were declared KIA or MIA or had died of wounds. After that date, an additional 21,000 former Polish POWs were inducted.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

If anyone should doubt the contribution of the Poles during 1939, a period when their allies did nothing to aid them in their heroic defense, here is a reminder:


The 1939 Campaign

At the outbreak of the war, Polish army was able to put in the field almost one million soldiers, 2800 guns, 500 tanks and 400 aircraft. On the September 1st, the German forces set to war against Poland amounted to more than 1.5 million solders, 9000 guns, 2500 tanks and almost 2000 aircraft. The Red Army began the invasion sending in the first lot more than 620 000 soldiers, 4700 tanks and 3200 aircraft. Despite the overwhelming odds and the necessity of defense against the offensive in all directions, the Polish army fought for 35 days. Warsaw held until September 28th, the Polish garrison of Hel Peninsula for more than a month. The last battle against German troops took place on October 5.

Polish losses in combat against Germans (killed and missing in action) amounted to ca. 70 000. 420 000 were taken prisoners. Losses against the Red Army added up to 6000 to 7000 of casualties and MIA, 250 000 were taken prisoners. Of these, almost all of the officers were murdered in the spring on 1940 in Katyn, Kharkiv and Tver upon Stalin’s decision. Although the Polish army – considering the inactivity of the Allies – was in an unfavorable position – it managed to inflict serious losses to the enemies: 14 000 German soldiers were killed or MIA, 674 tanks and 319 armored vehicles destroyed or badly damaged, 230 aircraft shot down; the Red Army lost (killed and MIA) about 2500 soldiers, 150 combat vehicles and 20 aircraft. For many weeks Poland contained significant German forces, no advantage of this was taken by the Allies. Besides that, the necessity to reinforce the German military forces destroyed in Poland gave France and Great Britain more time to prepare to repulse invasion.

http://www.ww2.pl/The,1939,Campaign,22.html

While we all can agree that Poland's Army could never have been classified as "the best", an argument could be made that they might have earned the title of "most heroic" indeed.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

First post in a while.

Germany
100%

P.S:I'm working on a book on battles of SS and Heer troops at Narva early to mid 1944. I can post some if anyone is interested.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If anyone should doubt the contribution of the Poles during 1939, a period when their allies did nothing to aid them in their heroic defense, here is a reminder:

The Poles weren't able to defend their country nearly as well as Finland, and if your numbers are correct, the Poles had better odds in terms of manpower.

Polish Campaign:

Polish Forces
1,000,000 soldiers
500 tanks
400 aircraft

German and Soviet Forces
2,300,000 soldiers
2500 tanks
2300 aircraft

Winter War:

Finnish Forces
250,000 soldiers
30 tanks
130 aircraft

Soviet Forces
1,000,000 soldiers
6500 tanks
3800 aircraft

Compare the odds.

EDIT: Here they are, just for you.

Polish Campaign
Soldiers: 2.3 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets
Tanks: 5 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets
Aircraft: 5.75 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets

Winter War
Soldiers: 4 to 1 in favour of Soviets
Tanks: 217 to 1 in favour of Soviets
Aircraft: 29 to 1 in favour of Soviets



While we all can agree that Poland's Army could never have been classified as "the best", an argument could be made that they might have earned the title of "most heroic" indeed.

If that label can even be assigned (which I do not believe it can - how do you classify "most heroic" anyways? However you do it, I'm willing to bet it's excluding Germans), it goes completely, 100% to the Finns, in my opinion.

[KarlXII]

Japanese army conquered big part of the world but...
1) there were practically no real defense
2) Japanse army had support from powerful Japanese fleet
3) morale were high but what is morale if commanders don't think

1. Are you kidding? They wouldn't budge. They had the "suicide before surrender" policy in mind.
2. Of course. Once the IJN was crippled completely at Midway, they couldn't stop island hopping. This wasn't a fault of the IJA, it was Allied naval supremacy.
3. Ummm, morale is fighting spirit. They were very eager to fight for the emperor, for their families. Its why they eagerly led mass charges.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Evil_Maniac From Mars,

I fully agree. The Finns also had to defend a larger stretch of land (1000km or so) from Soviet forces. This was after Mannerheim had already thought the Soviets would come almost exclusively north near Leningrad. The fact he was able to react and destroy such numbers of Soviet troops in the northern regions was amazing.

On the sea the Finnish units did quite well too. The few ships they had caused problems and coastal artillery took heavy tolls on Soviet fleets on the outset of the attack.

Also, even when Polish units were well equiped and trained by British forces and sent into battle in 1943 and late war years, they were usually decimated by German formations. And these are late war formations mind you.

[PanzerJaeger]

Essentially, once the German impetus was curtailed and the Red Army could introduce newer equipment to implement such a doctrine, that is what they accomplished. It was against such a doctrine that we trained when I was serving during the Cold War period. The idea of encountering such a force was intimidating to say the least-especially the thought of having to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a deep penetration.

Great sources. Im still reading. :2thumbsup:

Many German commanders became very adept at defending against this, Model and Raus in particular.

I think both the Poles and the Russians are not given enough credit by Western historians, when in reality the French and British armies had serious doctrinal issues.

France and Britain had enormous advantages in artillery and tanks, yet were easily defeated. Rommel's desert campaign also highlighted British deficiencies.


While we all can agree that Poland's Army could never have been classified as "the best", an argument could be made that they might have earned the title of "most heroic" indeed.

It is important to note that the Poles were decisively beaten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bzura) by the Germans before Russia entered. Sometimes I think too much credit is given to the Russian entry. Thats not to diminish the Polish defense.





P.S:I'm working on a book on battles of SS and Heer troops at Narva early to mid 1944. I can post some if anyone is interested.

Yes, definately. :yes:




The Poles weren't able to defend their country nearly as well as Finland, and if your numbers are correct, the Poles had better odds in terms of manpower.

You are also including both German and Soviet forces. The soviets entered late in the game, when the major battles had already been fought.


My test:

Quiz results:

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Germany
Regardless of what are your political views, you could have made a career in German army. You believe in effective warfare by method of combined arms and superior military training.
Germany
94%
British and the Commonwealth
75%
Soviet Union
75%
Poland
69%
Japan
63%
Italy
50%
United States
38%
Finland
38%
France, Free French and the Resistance
31%

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You are also including both German and Soviet forces. The soviets entered late in the game, when the major battles had already been fought.

But of course. It saves the step of having someone accusing me of leaving them out, and then me having to go back to recalculate the odds to prove them wrong, etc.

Backroom training, you see. ~;)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Yeah the Soviet troops really didn't do much. Somehow Stalin thought some Soviet generals "proved themselves", though I don't know in which battle. :laugh4:

[Brenus]

“Yep Blitzkrieg into Italy”::laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So the Polish understood the Blitzkrireg just after it complete failure in Russia… Congratulation… To move fast is not to master the concept of Blietzkrieg (combination of use of Air Force, avoiding fighting and surrounding the enemies forces, etc…), which the Germans failed to achieve in Russia…

“Yep - French myth”: Your “explanation” without any documentation proves nothing. The fact that the French High Command didn’t believe that the Blitzkrieg will work in France (because Maginot and the Ardennes and their own Armoured Divisions) didn’t create a “myth” that the Polish were less trained than the Germans…:inquisitive:
And frankly, no army will take lessons from another army, especially one defeated in a so short moment…

“French units broke paratroopers at Monte Cassino”: The French didn’t thought against the Paratroopers on the Garigliano
“In the night of the 11th-12th of May, after a powerful artillery preparation, the offensive is launch. The 71st German Infantry Division defends it position until the night when Catelforte fall to the 3rd DIA (Algerians) and the Monte Faito to the 2nd DIM (Moroccans). The pressing is on the Germans who brake after two merciless days of fight: the 13th of May San Andrea, Girofano, Cesaroli and the massif of Monte Majo are in the French hands. At the same time the 1st DFL (Free French Division) cleans the Garigliano banks and move to the right bank of the Liri River. The Mount Petralla is the last obstacle from the Gustav Line to take. Forming the “Mountain Corps” under the command of Savez, with the “rd DIM and the Moroccan Tabors from the Gal Guillaume. Gal Juin launches the battle. The objective falls the 15th at down. Rome is open. The CEF (Corps Expeditionnaire Francais) keeps the momentum. The 3rd DIA and the 1st DFL arrive at the doors of Rome”

The 17th of May Kesselring ordered the German Troops to withdraw and the 18th of May the Polish took Monte Casino (after a failed attempt the 13th).

You just can imagine what I could write if I was like you… Do you?:beam:

French units (Berbers) flanked Germans but their attack was stopped because...
According to French sources your soldiers raped every Italian woman around.
Your French hater attitude pushes you every far my dear… Just a bit (bite) of hate in the win…:beam:
The Garigliano Battle and the Italian Campaign “add a new epopee to the French History”: Gal Clark (USA).

“Paratroopers withdraw from Cassino but not only because of French soldiers flanking them. 17 th may Paratropeers defense became broken. If they did not withdraw, they would be defeated into few days. And do not forget about brits and americans who broke through Liri Valley”
As you said, not only. I don’t. You do.

“Check stats - Russian won campaign but how many of them died for one German soldier?” Check geography: Who took the capital of the other? You conquered the other? Check tactics and strategy: Who defeat the other?
:book:

[KrooK]

Brenus - I will reply on your post later ( I have to find book I found my data about rapes - I read it about a year ago). Hovewer I think that tactic depends on fast tank raids connected with outflanking enemies and good using air support can be called Blitzkrieg. And despite 13th Poles failed (hovewer their sacrifice allowed Brits to take city Cassino), their 2nd attack 17th May broke paratroopers and forced them to withdraw (other causes were breaking German position on east and west).
But what are we talking about - due to Alexander stupidity all these sacrifice was wasted.

Comparing situation on Poland and Finland into 1939 makes no sense.

Before I explain my opinion I have to explain number of tanks into polish army.
As tanks were counted here vehicles called "Tankietka". It was small (2 people staff) vehicle with heavy machine gun - generally worse that armoured car. It was used as support of infantry or recon unit.

But getting back to comparisons of Poland and Finland.
First of all - completely different position
Poland - good roads, big railway net, perfect weather (it was one of hottest Septembers in Poland), flat territory, big German minority (traitors and spies) and good enemy ( I classify German army much better than Soviet), good attacking position for Germans

Finland (especially Karelia) - no good roads, some railways, hard winter (-35*C), no flat territory (big forests and hundreds of lakes), practically no one supported Russians, Soviets as enemy (all my conclusions about Soviet army from previous posts). I agree that Finns had to defend 1000 KM, however they had to defend into much better situation. Thats why we can't compare armies only because of results.

Finns had very good army - I agree too. They army was very similar to polish one IMO. Sounds suprising - but lets compare some facts. It was army count from free people who want defend their homes. They were not fanatics, but they understood that they can't loose. Their commanders were inteligent and did not want sacrifice soldiers without necessity. Lack of mechanic transport was compensated by horses or skis.

[Brenus]

“I have to find book I found my data about rapes”: Please do. And do you imagine that, even if it would have been a wave of rapes from the French, it will have stop to use them in a battle?

[KarlXII]

Hovewer I think that tactic depends on fast tank raids connected with outflanking enemies and good using air support can be called Blitzkrieg. And despite 13th Poles failed (hovewer their sacrifice allowed Brits to take city Cassino), their 2nd attack 17th May broke paratroopers and forced them to withdraw (other causes were breaking German position on east and west).

Yet again, you're giving the Poles to much credit. The mass charges, and artillery shells broke the men in Cassino. Not Polish heroism.


omparing situation on Poland and Finland into 1939 makes no sense.

Why not? Both were newly independant nations from a defeated country, both had a small army (Poles had a larger one compared to Finland) and they fought against large nations. The thing is, Finland uses Soviet incompetence to their advantage. Poland faced a very competent enemy.


I explain my opinion I have to explain number of tanks into polish army.
As tanks were counted here vehicles called "Tankietka". It was small (2 people staff) vehicle with heavy machine gun - generally worse that armoured car. It was used as support of infantry or recon unit.

And? Finland had almost no tanks to speak of. At all.


ting back to comparisons of Poland and Finland.
First of all - completely different position
Poland - good roads, big railway net, perfect weather (it was one of hottest Septembers in Poland), flat territory, big German minority (traitors and spies) and good enemy ( I classify German army much better than Soviet), good attacking position for Germans

Which is why they lost so quickly. I honestly think Poland did not understand Blitzkrieg.


(especially Karelia) - no good roads, some railways, hard winter (-35*C), no flat territory (big forests and hundreds of lakes), practically no one supported Russians, Soviets as enemy (all my conclusions about Soviet army from previous posts). I agree that Finns had to defend 1000 KM, however they had to defend into much better situation. Thats why we can't compare armies only because of results.

We sure as hell can. Simple, Finland had better strategy, men, and morale than Poland.


ad very good army - I agree too. They army was very similar to polish one IMO. Sounds suprising - but lets compare some facts. It was army count from free people who want defend their homes. They were not fanatics, but they understood that they can't loose. Their commanders were inteligent and did not want sacrifice soldiers without necessity. Lack of mechanic transport was compensated by horses or skis.
The only problem was that Finland survived. Poland didn't.

[KrooK]

Swedish -
1) what was last war Sweden won :) I think into ww2 your army must had perfect morale too - especially when supporting Germans
2) Imagine its 10 times easier to defend into Karelia than into Polish lowland
3) do not mix Monte Cassino with Bologne - two completely different battles
4) do not compare polish military situation with finn - they are uncomparable
5) Poland understood Blitzkrieg - sometimes you have conditions you simply can't win. Notice that Finland had to ask for peace too.
6) Art on Monte Cassino gave nothing. Maybe some morale support but generally it more helped Germans than Allies ( Germans had better mortars).

Brenus
Matthew Parker "Monte Cassino", 2003
I have only polish edition but its quite famous book so there should be english on french too. Chapter title "From Sicily to Cassino" part "On Gustav line" - in polish edition pages 106/107


Anyway how about French army into 1940
Do you agree on
1) Terrible morale
2) Bad commanders
3) Archaic organisation
4) Archaic military doctrine

[KarlXII]

Swedish -
1) what was last war Sweden won :) I think into ww2 your army must had perfect morale too - especially when supporting Germans

Ah, i see we are now going off topic to attack other countries. OK, Krook, when was the last time Poland won anything? I mean, being conquered and controlled by so many foreigners must be tiresome. But hey, as long as you are putting up meager resistance, we'll have nationalism for ages to come.

I apologize that Sweden did not want to lose her young men to a war which we probably wouldn't have gained anything in anyway. Damn us, not wanting to be occupied by a foreign nation, we need to learn something from you brave Poles. Damn us, trading with a powerful nation (other than Poland, apparently) that was right next to us.

Forgive me, I am not worthy.


2) Imagine its 10 times easier to defend into Karelia than into Polish lowland

Your point? I already know Finland had terrain advantage. Poland was screwed to begin with.


3) do not mix Monte Cassino with Bologne - two completely different battles

When the hell did I do that?


4) do not compare polish military situation with finn - they are uncomparable

Ah, ok.

Finland was better.


5) Poland understood Blitzkrieg - sometimes you have conditions you simply can't win. Notice that Finland had to ask for peace too.

Knowing when you can't win relates to Blitzkrieg? You do know Blitzkrieg is the combined arms of infantry, motor and air power to encircle and destroy armies, right? Its not having a few tanks on a hill fend off an understrenghted enemy.

Finland had to ask for peace, because they simply could not win in the long run. The Soviets could easily replace losses.


6) Art on Monte Cassino gave nothing. Maybe some morale support but generally it more helped Germans than Allies ( Germans had better mortars).

Artillery did make cover for Germans, yes, but you do know shells raining down on you doesn't help the nerves.

Then again, I'm sure the BRAVE POLISH FIGHTERS WHO EAT GERMANS AND HAVE IRON BLOOD don't go through that.

[Brenus]

“Matthew Parker "Monte Cassino", 2003”: I thought you spoke of French sources… Unknown in France and 2003 was a perfect years to sell bad things about the French… Not reliable, I am afraid, some kind of Intel than the WMD at the same period…:beam:

“Do you agree on
1) Terrible morale
2) Bad commanders
3) Archaic organisation
4) Archaic military doctrine”

Completely. The French mobilised but very reluctantly. During years and years they were told than the WW1 was the last one, “la der des der”, and they didn’t appreciate to go again to the slaughter. The French wanted peace, and excepted the volunteers of the International Brigades in Spain, nobody understood the danger, or wanted to ignore it as much as possible.

The worst commanders ever seen. Gamelin was in post and couldn’t wait for retirement. The major General (Waygand, Petain etc) were old and against the Republic (la Gueuse).

The Organisation wasn’t so archaic. De facto, the concept of the DRC, the Armoured Divisions was good. And when facing the Germans, without the Stukas, the Pz II and III were not match.

The military doctrine was archaic in the sense that all countries wanted to duplicate the war they won. In 1914, the French were for offensives and bayonets against the machine guns. In 1939, they wanted to win 1918…

I don’t deny that 1940 was a terrible defeat for the French. What I am contesting is: The French soldiers surrendered without fight (the surrendering Cheese Eater Monkeys syndrome): 90 000 dead in month is more than at Verdun.

[KrooK]

Fish
1) Poland won last great war into 1921 :) It will be about - 100 years later than Sweden.
2) Sweden din't want do anything into ww2 :) Thats why you deny to support Finland into 1939 - despite it was clear that you would be next.
3) If you don't know that Finland had terrain advantage ... sorry but why are you posting here. Look at the map. And if you believe that for tank division fight into heavy snow is same like into perfect weather ... hmm I don't know. Maybe kiss metal car into heavy winter :D
4)
Knowing when you can't win relates to Blitzkrieg? You do know Blitzkrieg is the combined arms of infantry, motor and air power to encircle and destroy armies, right? Its not having a few tanks on a hill fend off an understrenghted enemy.
Read something about polish offensive to Bologne. It was real blitzkrieg - fast combined attack with strong air support. Poles captured 50 KM into 13 days, crossing 4 rivers and 9 channels - all of them strenghtened. During with destroyed became German 4th paratrooper division and 1st division suffered big loses. Victory was possibile due to very fast match and good cooperation beetwen tanks, infantry and air forces. For me its kind of blitzkrieg.
5) You mixed Monte Cassino and Bologne when you were replying on my post of Blitzkrieg. When I was talking about Blizkrieg and Bologne battle, you wrote that Monte Cassino it was not blitzkrieg.

Brenus - this book is well made. There are quotations from French sources. It was written not because of Iraq war (and French jokes connected with that). For me its reliable source, but truth that made from Anglo Saxon point of view (so some things seems strange).

[KarlXII]

Fish
1) Poland won last great war into 1921 :) It will be about - 100 years later than Sweden.

Nothing great about that war.


2) Sweden din't want do anything into ww2 :) Thats why you deny to support Finland into 1939 - despite it was clear that you would be next.

No. No. No! We didn't do anything because we didn't want to be involved in a war we would gain nothing from. The USSR could not even beat the Poles and Finns. How would they fight Sweden?


3) If you don't know that Finland had terrain advantage ... sorry but why are you posting here. Look at the map. And if you believe that for tank division fight into heavy snow is same like into perfect weather ... hmm I don't know. Maybe kiss metal car into heavy winter :D

Wait......what? I DO know Finland had a terrain advantage. What map? And I never claimed fighing in snow was like fighting in perfect weather.

You know, I may just start answering like this:

SWEDEN HAD UBER COMANDO TROPS DIGISED AS BRITS AND THE USED UFO RAYS AND HORSE MADE OF MAGMA AND THEY FOUGHT EVIL COWARDICE RUSIAN PIG DOOG ON THE RIVA AISNE AND IF THEY DIDN U'D ALL BE UNDA COMUNIST FAG RULE!

THANK SWEDEN 4 UR LIVES!!!!111

That, or stand in front of the Polish flag and sing your nationalist anthems.

Going to calm down.

[CBR]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you.

Just a few comments:

The Finnish-Soviet border was about 1200 Km. The overall German-Polish border (Slovakia incl) apparently was about 2300 Km. Even if we straighten it out and allow the Poles to pull back a bit its still 1200+ Km.

From maps of the initial deployment, one can see several Polish divisions positioned at the Soviet border. I doubt Finland wasted many troops guarding the Swedish and Norwegian borders at the begiining of the Winter War.

There also does seem to be quite a difference in the initial phase of the two wars as Finland mobilized quite early and was as ready as they could be when the Soviets finally attacked. The Polish mobilization was late and their army was not ready when war came.

The German offensive was well prepared and they attacked on multiple front whereas The Karelian Isthmus became the main effort for the Soviets. They seem be have been confident and initially did not have that great a numerical superiority and the first offensive was a failure.

Terrain and logistics was certainly in favor of Finland compared to Poland. It left the Soviets with a lot fewer options than Germany. The results should be quite obvious: Soviet head-on assaults against prepared postions in Karelia versus multiple German armies aiming for the classic encirclement of the enemy.


CBR

[KarlXII]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you

My apologies. It just bugs me.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.

In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-2%20PICS/KTiger-sPzAbt506-Captured.jpg

[Marshal Murat]

I think that I'm going to upset some Finns here, but I don't think that they were the 'best'. The Finns were given some advantages that were held by only some other nations.

1. Highly motivated armed forces
2. Inept Soviet armed forces
3. Natural terrain

I'm not saying that the Finns weren't good, but I don't think that they were the best army. I'll grant that they were able to hold off Soviet attacks, but most were against inept Soviet formations led by commissars, stuffed with conscripts. The Soviets then marched into the woods, and surprise! They were annihilated in some mottis. Others pinned down significant Finnish forces, like the great motti. The Finns were good, but great? No.

The Japanese were good in some areas, bad in others. Their tanks were worse than Italians. Their men, however, were motivated and skilled. Some generals were adept, others not. You get that in many forces. I think it's more because of Hollywood and the 'evil japs'. In Burma, the Japanese did put Slim on the ropes. The army wasn't as big a focus since Japan was an island. Like Mahan said, naval power means national power.

I would say the best would be America, just because I know everyone is going to disagree.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The fact that the Finns used the advantages given to them effectively, whereas the Poles did not, which goes to show something. The Poles had better ratios in terms of men, tanks, and aircraft than the Finns, which was their advantage. The Finns had better terrain and logistics. This at least speaks for the quality of the Finnish officer staff.

By the way, Finland also had a conscripted army.

[rotorgun]

The Poles weren't able to defend their country nearly as well as Finland, and if your numbers are correct, the Poles had better odds in terms of manpower.

Polish Campaign:

Polish Forces
1,000,000 soldiers
500 tanks
400 aircraft

German and Soviet Forces
2,300,000 soldiers
2500 tanks
2300 aircraft

Winter War:

Finnish Forces
250,000 soldiers
30 tanks
130 aircraft

Soviet Forces
1,000,000 soldiers
6500 tanks
3800 aircraft

Compare the odds:

Polish Campaign
Soldiers: 2.3 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets
Tanks: 5 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets
Aircraft: 5.75 to 1 in favour of Germany/Soviets

Winter War
Soldiers: 4 to 1 in favour of Soviets
Tanks: 217 to 1 in favour of Soviets
Aircraft: 29 to 1 in favour of Soviets

If that label can even be assigned (which I do not believe it can - how do you classify "most heroic" anyways? However you do it, I'm willing to bet it's excluding Germans), it goes completely, 100% to the Finns, in my opinion.

Sorry for not getting back sooner on this, and I didn't mean to offend or start a row. I thank you for the interesting comparison of odds. On paper it appears as if the Polish Army should have given a better account of themselves, but numbers alone aren't always the answer. As others have pointed out, the massive numerical advantages of the Red armies were in many ways negated by the severe weather encountered. Also, their attack doctrine was no where near as developed as were the Blitzkrieg operations of the Germans. Still I totally agree that Finland put up a spirited and heroic defense. The initiative of all ranks within the Finnish Army allowed them to take advantage of the blundering, and overconfident Soviet attack. This enabled the Finns to negotiate from a position of strength as the Russians wished to avoid further casualties even though they won. My hat is off to Finland.

The Poles, on the other hand, faced a much different situation entirely. Attacked by a competent enemy with a much superior mobile element as the Panzer Corps, backed up by a modern air force, both tied together with good communications, led by a General Staff that was second to none at the time, all this during near perfect campaign conditions- the result was almost a certainty. Still, the Polish army fought on while knowing that it was futile - even charging into an armored fight with cavalry at one point. Surely one can't fail to be moved.

The final conclusion I draw is that there was no lack of courage in either army. I concede that Finland's soldiery where, and still are among the best in the world. I just don't feel that they were the best.

PS: Neither do I claim the Polish army as the best either. I have yet to stake a claim in this friendly (I hope) discussion.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry for not getting back sooner on this, and I didn't mean to offend or start a row. I thank you for the interesting comparison of odds. On paper it appears as if the Polish Army should have given a better account of themselves, but numbers alone aren't always the answer.

Precisely why I believe the Finns had the better army. Remember, part of being a good army is utilizing the terrain you're given.


As others have pointed out, the massive numerical advantages of the Red armies were in many ways negated by the severe weather encountered. Also, their attack doctrine was no where near as developed as were the Blitzkrieg operations of the Germans. Still I totally agree that Finland put up a spirited and heroic defense. The initiative of all ranks within the Finnish Army allowed them to take advantage of the blundering, and overconfident Soviet attack. This enabled the Finns to negotiate from a position of strength as the Russians wished to avoid further casualties even though they won. My hat is off to Finland.

:bow:


The Poles, on the other hand, faced a much different situation entirely. Attacked by a competent enemy with a much superior mobile element as the Panzer Corps, backed up by a modern air force, both tied together with good communications, led by a General Staff that was second to none at the time, all this during near perfect campaign conditions- the result was almost a certainty. Still, the Polish army fought on while knowing that it was futile - even charging into an armored fight with cavalry at one point. Surely one can't fail to be moved.

Indeed, though the Finns managed to defeat a German army later in the war...

The armoured fight with cavalry has been debunked as at least a partial myth, I'm fairly certain. Perhaps Panzer has a source immediately available?


The final conclusion I draw is that there was no lack of courage in either army. I concede that Finland's soldiery where, and still are among the best in the world. I just don't feel that they were the best.

Indeed, both armies had men with courage in abundance. On the other hand, so did almost every other army in the war - probably the Japanese more than anyone, with almost (and much of the time more than almost) suicidal courage.

I also don't believe the Finns had the best army in the Second World War, simply that they did a better job defending themselves than the Poles. I feel that the Wehrmacht was the strongest both tactically and strategically.


I have yet to stake a claim in this friendly (I hope) discussion.

Very much friendly, I did not mean to come across otherwise. My humble apologies if that is the case. :bow:

[rotorgun]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.

In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-2%20PICS/KTiger-sPzAbt506-Captured.jpg

While I am certainly proud of the history of our army during WWII, I should like to point out one fact often overlooked by many. In fighting the Germans in Europe, at no time, except possibly during the Ardennes campaign, did the Western Allies face more then roughly one fourth of the German Army. The balance was in the east, where the majority of the elite SS and Whermacht mobile units were assigned. In many cases, the Americans and Allies were fighting second rate troops, backed up by some elite forces who were badly outnumbered and dominated from the skies. Even then, the Germans came close to inflicting a stalemate upon them.

If there was any area in which the US Army excelled in, it was probably the coordination of its artillery fires. Theirs was the fastest, most flexible, and accurate overall of all the Armies of WWII. The British could occasionally deliver faster predesignated barrages, but they sacrificed accuracy to do so. The Germans could make more accurate fires sat times as well, but never with anything near the speed. The fire control system of the Americans often enabled the massing of all available batteries within range of a specific target in less than 10 minutes. It was this that enabled them to defeat the 1st SS Panzer Corps at Elsenborn Ridge during December 1944 as one example.

Another trait of the American Army was, and still is, an uncanny ability to adapt its doctrines, tactics, and strategies on the fly, so to speak. This often makes us unpredictable. As Field Marshall Rommel said of us:

"The reason that the Americans learn to fight so quickly is that War is chaos, and they practice chaos on a daily basis." I have observed this characteristic on numerous occasions in over thirty years service in the US Army, and have practiced it myself from time to time. :wall:

In the Pacific, the Marines were the perfect opponents for the Japanese, being nearly as stoic. I'll have to sort out my thoughts as to why they were so dominate. Certainly the overwhelming material advantages they had were one factor, but this alone was not the only reason.

PS: Goodnight friends, I'll have to take it up tomorrow as it's a bit late for an old dude like me to be up when I have to work in the AM.

[PanzerJaeger]

The armoured fight with cavalry has been debunked as at least a partial myth, I'm fairly certain. Perhaps Panzer has a source immediately available?

Mokra was the battle, and the Poles didn't come out too badly. There was never a charge at tanks with cavalry though, more of an accidental meeting.

Krojanty was where the myth originated. Polish cavalry attacked a German infantry battalion and were repulsed. Afterward, Axis journalists were brought to the scene of dead polish cavalry men next to (recently arrived) German tanks. Thus the myth was born. By the way, the Poles had some decent AT stuff, so they would never charge tanks with sabers drawn.

I know Mokra is on wiki, not sure about Krojanty. :book:

[rotorgun]

Danke Panzer, that was timely. I forgot that I have an ASL scenario dealing with that very battle. It certainly made an impression on the Germans though.

See ya'll later.

[Martok]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.
My own opinion of our military forces in WW2 is that they were....okay. Decent, but not great. I suppose one could potentially argue that ours was the best (due to our significant advantages in men and material), but I usually prefer to grade such things on a per capita basis.

American commanders were generally competent but not brilliant (aside from a few notable exceptions such as Patton). Our training and doctrine was solid & fairly well thought-out, while still allowing for innovation & adaptation when necessary. American vehicles, guns, and equipment generally weren't anything particularly special (I always think of the very-average Sherman tank), but they were relatively reliable and fairly easy to service.

The one area in which I would say the US excelled was in logistics -- again, at least partially because of our resource advantage. We seemed to do pretty well at keeping our troops reasonably well-supplied on a (more or less) consistent basis.



In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?
I'd say it's a bit of both. In addition to the Marines being somewhat better and more thoroughly trained, we were also able to take advantage of the Japanese' faulty tactics and doctrine.

The IJA seemed to suffer from a "personal skills in combat are more important than the whole" syndrome, and never fully adopted the more standard "professional" stance used by most other major armies at the time. I don't think Japanese army commanders ever truly grasped the full meaning & importance of coordinating one's units to achieve objectives -- they were too locked into traditional "samurai mode" (so to speak).

Of course (as mentioned before), we also had the overall advantage in personnel & equipment, which definitely helped. The fact that the US Pacific Navy had managed to cut off support to Imperial troops certainly didn't hurt either. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

PS: Goodnight friends, I'll have to take it up tomorrow as it's a bit late for an old dude like me to be up when I have to work in the AM.

Thanks for the writeup. :bow:

I feel their ability to adapt allowed them to surpass the British as a fighting force, even though the Brits had more experience fighting the Germans.

I wonder if anyone would disagree. :damnmate:

[Tribesman]

Before I explain my opinion I have to explain number of tanks into polish army.
As tanks were counted here vehicles called "Tankietka". It was small (2 people staff) vehicle with heavy machine gun - generally worse that armoured car.
Wow thats fascinating a tank armed only with machine guns , you mean just like the Germans and Russians had ,and the Brits and Americans French Italians Finns Japanese . But of course all those other armies didn't count little machine gun armed tanks as tanks they called them tanks instead .
Now of course that would just be a little comparrison , for another comparrison you could take some more similar tanks , or even identical ones say perhaps Polish and Finnish ones (though of course not little toy tanks but real ones with guns that go bang) The Finns managed to get most of theirs into action despite bad weather , the Poles kept them in reserve then drove them to Romania . :oops:

[RollingWave]

Japanese army conquered big part of the world but...
1) there were practically no real defense
2) Japanse army had support from powerful Japanese fleet
3) morale were high but what is morale if commanders don't think

the problem here is that

a. the vast majority of the Japanese army conflict happened in China, a part of the war that goes very overlooked by the west.

b. by the time they actually fought a full fledged western army it was much later in the war. where they're strength have been wasted in China and their support cut off and their equipment fading while the Americans made great advances from earlier in the war.

c. by design, their army was only suppose to deal with China and some of the light colonial stations. they were decently designed for that. their tanks were bad but all of those places have pretty rough terrain (outside of northern China to some extend) so it's not like having a great heavy tank would have been practical. they correctly precieved that their real task is to controll the sea. as there were no truely first class armies anywhere on their side of the Pacific. they didn't need a great army to succeed and they wouldn't have been saved by a great army.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's not to say that they were good though. China was both poorly developed and suffering from massive internal conflicts prior / after and even during the entire war. the Japanese wasn't even out numbered as much as preceived as they did have some support from Manchuria and some local collabrators. but once they got pass the coastal areas they really started to struggle. often getting outflanked with really bad stratgey planning that basically could be summed up as a strait charge up the Yanzti river.

Of course, i think the biggest failure wasn't just the army strategy and tactics, it was the complete failure to assimilate the population. if you read some of the living recount of the guerrila warfare waged by the Chinese some were hilarious, as they basically put back on civilian cloth and walk right into the Japanese held towns to buy supply and equipment.... to blow up the Japanese! they basically had no defense against hit and run warfare. and didnt really try . they're rule didn't extend much further then the town they hold and even then it's not nearly as fully powered as it would appear.

For the Japanese plan to have worked, quickly conquering China and turning it into a useful base of operration to provide manpower and supply would have been crucial. but they ended up wasteing a lot more resources there then they actually got .

[KrooK]

Sorry - some Tankietka's had cannons - but only few.
http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/pojazdy/tk/_galeria.htm

Swedish sorry but I simply can't find arguments. Maybe if Russia and Germany together attacked Sweden (to be fair lets add Norwegia who attacks Sweden from back :D ), you would understand what mean surrounded. Poles had no such advantages as Finland - if you had no good terrain you can't use it. Russians had practically 2 directions from whom they could attack. All of them well defended. Germans could attack from every place on border.
If you enemies are not idiots, you can't use it. Sorry but comparing German commanders to Russian has no sence. Generals of Russian divisions could not be captains into German ones.
If weather helps your enemy you can't change weather. If your allies leave you, you can't wait on help.
Only real advantage Poland had on Germany was generally better morale. But morale alone its not all.

[Tribesman]

Sorry - some Tankietka's had cannons - but only few.

Wow you mean that Poland had upgraded some of its little tanks by 1939while all the other countries still used just the little machine guns tanks for years after Poland got overrun .
Fascinating ...hmmm...but what about its other tanks that were not little tanks then Krook ?

[Kagemusha]

I would like to raise my tiny little point again. I understand that Winter War is fascinating subject, but we cant judge the Finnish military only based on it. During Winter War, we all know the problems Soviet Union had, Stalins purges had decapitated the Soviet Officer Corps, Soviet Union deployed many of its forces from the Southern Military districts which were partially very ill suited for fighting in Winter conditions, also the Soviet doctrine was pretty immobile during winter war, which gave advantage many times to Finnish troops.

Also there are some myths about the Finnish side which need debugging, first the So called Mannerheim line was not what the Soviet Propaganda made it out to be, it was nothing compared example to Maginot line, it was 132 kilometers long line, with three defensive lines one behind another. The line had 157 machine gun positions and 8 artillery positions made from concrete, so approximately 1,25 concrete installations per kilometer in the depth of the three defensive lines. Mostly it was just earthen bunkers and trench dig in the ground.
Many people have the picture that the Mannerheim line was strength of Finnish defense in Winter War, while it was ill suited for the Finnish doctrine.
When we look at the battles between Lake Ladoga and Icy sea during Winter War, the Finnish mobile forces were able to defeat the Soviet attacking spearheads everywhere, because of the high motorization of Soviet forces and by that they being very dependent upon the few roads that were available.
In these forest battles the Finns were able to use their mobile tactics successfully in order to defeat the Soviets, but in Karelian Isthmus, which was the shortest route to inner Finland the situation was very different. Karelian Isthmus was densely populated and hosted for example the second largest city of Finland then, Viipuri. It had the main railroad lines towards SU and the terrain was covered mostly on fields, rather then forests.There was neither lack of roads for the enemy to move its troops and equipment. Also because of the winter the rivers that ran through the Isthmus were frozen, which made it lot easier for Soviet tanks to operate, without depending on bridges. If there was a place which was suited for the highly mobilized Soviet army it was the Isthmus.
Because Finns lacked almost completely AT weapons during the winter war and because Soviets had a huge artillery advantage, the tactics was to keep minimal amount of men in the front lines, in order to save men from the pounding of the soviet artillery. When Soviets attacked, Finns let generally the Soviet tanks go through and then counter attacked their own positions with reserves, once the Soviet Tanks were separated from the infantry, small "tuhoajapartiot" = anti tank squads hunted down the separated Soviet tanks lacking infantry support and destroyed them with satchel charges and "molotov cocktails".
Also there the Finnish forces were forced to fight pitched battles for months against enemy which had superiority in both men and equipment and it was also there where Finnish army had its worst casualties and became exhausted, not broken before the peace was made, but almost completely exhausted. One major reason being that Soviets controlled the skies almost completely and supplying the troops was very problematic.

But enough of the Winter War. We have gone through it here and also it has been debated to death in other places. Lets talk summer 1944 and the fourth strategic offensive like the Soviets called it. During the Spring 1944, Finland asked for peace from the Soviet Union, as it seemed certain that Germany would not be able to defeat Soviet Union. Soviet Union did not accept Finnish terms for peace and demanded that nothing else but unconditional surrender was acceptable. Finland was not willing to surrender so Soviet Union decided to crush the Finnish army during summer 1944, with its fourth strategic offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_strategic_offensive

This was two prolonged assault from both sides of Lake Ladoga, where initially there was 75 000 Finnish fighting against 500 000 Soviets with enermous advance in material and equipment. The assault happened in the middle of the summer and this time the Soviets didnt have the problems they had during Winter War. In the end Finland was able to stop all the Soviet attacks by deploying almost its entire army against the attacker thus winning the last 8 major battles and stopping the the Soviet armies before they crossed the border of 1940 in all fronts,thus the entire Continuation war was fought on Soviet area of 1940. Few of the notable battles in the end of the offensive are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vuosalmi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tienhaara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nietj%C3%A4rvi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilomantsi

In my humble opinion, winter war was a glorious defeat, but continuation war just as glorious defeat, because while militarily the Finnish army was not beaten in the end of the winter war, it was exhausted, but in the end of the continuation war, the attacking soviet armies were defeated in detail and it would have taken from Stavka a lot of men to pull out from the German fronts to defeat the pesky Finns, which resulted in that the Soviet demands for unconditional surrender were withdrawn and Finland stayed independent after WWII, thanks to the great efforts of the Finnish army during the battles of summer 1944. I understand that this part of WWII, is not glorified by the West for example, because Finland was on the "wrong" side, but then for us Finns the defensive victories of summer 44 were even more wonder like, since our front was the only front where the Soviets were stopped.

EDIT: It seems im Finnish according to quiz.I guess our instructors used still the same essential doctrines~;)

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Finland
Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.
Finland
100%
Poland
94%
British and the Commonwealth
56%
France, Free French and the Resistance
50%
Italy
50%
Japan
50%
Soviet Union
50%
United States
31%
Germany
25%

[KarlXII]

Swedish sorry but I simply can't find arguments. Maybe if Russia and Germany together attacked Sweden (to be fair lets add Norwegia who attacks Sweden from back :D ), you would understand what mean surrounded. Poles had no such advantages as Finland - if you had no good terrain you can't use it. Russians had practically 2 directions from whom they could attack. All of them well defended. Germans could attack from every place on border.
If you enemies are not idiots, you can't use it. Sorry but comparing German commanders to Russian has no sence. Generals of Russian divisions could not be captains into German ones.
If weather helps your enemy you can't change weather. If your allies leave you, you can't wait on help.
Only real advantage Poland had on Germany was generally better morale. But morale alone its not all.

You mean you don't consider German occupied Norway, Axis Finland and Germany below you being surrounded?

The Russians could attack from two places, which is why they won. There was simply not enough Finns to hold them back.

Germany had three borders with Poland, if you count the Axis allied one. This allowed them to utterly destroy Poland.

If Poland had better morale, then why did they capitulate so quickly? You would think they would have an Iraq-style insurgent force and NOT the Warsaw ghetto. Hell, Greece put up more of a fight in their occupation.

[KrooK]

Kagemusha- I don't deny bravery of Finnish army. I just tell that conditions we so different that uncomparable. Actually I read about war 1944 and I know that Russian won there practically only due to massive art support.
BTW did Russians give back Porkkala Penisula? From polish experience I know that its a bit hard to pull them back from places they once enter :)

Sweedish - if Poland lost into a month, Sweden would lost into 2 days :).
You are really deply resistant on argumentation. Maybe you would like to say something about swedish army? Maybe you tell us why Finland is not Swedish anymore :).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

BTW did Russians give back Porkkala Penisula?

Yes, they did.

[Kagemusha]

Kagemusha- I don't deny bravery of Finnish army. I just tell that conditions we so different that uncomparable. Actually I read about war 1944 and I know that Russian won there practically only due to massive art support.
BTW did Russians give back Porkkala Penisula? From polish experience I know that its a bit hard to pull them back from places they once enter :)

Sweedish - if Poland lost into a month, Sweden would lost into 2 days :).
You are really deply resistant on argumentation. Maybe you would like to say something about swedish army? Maybe you tell us why Finland is not Swedish anymore :).

I just wanted to point out that WWII for Finnish army was lot more then Winter War 1939-40. I dont have anything bad to say about Polish army during WWII. I dont have a doubt in my mind that any country participating in WWII could have defeated the combined assault of Germany and Soviet Union in 1939. Polish army did what it could in impossible situation.
About Porkkala, it was leased for Soviet Union in the Moscow peace treaty of 1944 and was returned to Finland in 1956.:yes:

[KarlXII]

Sweedish - if Poland lost into a month, Sweden would lost into 2 days :).
You are really deply resistant on argumentation. Maybe you would like to say something about swedish army? Maybe you tell us why Finland is not Swedish anymore :).

Another gross exagerration. Yay.

The Swedish Army? What would you like me to say? It was very small during WW2, because Sweden had no real need for a large standing army.

Why isn't Finland Swedish anymore? Well, thats because we lost it during the Finnish War due to the Treaty of Fredrikshamn to the Russian Empire. I don't see how this relates to the current argument, other than that its an attempt to make Sweden look bad and push your views using exaggerated statements.

I'm glad Sweden didn't get involved in WW2. We didn't need to. There was no threat to us. We were also outmatched. I suspect that if we were invaded, we would put up a Finnish style resistance. The grounds we would've had to use to DOW the Axis would be faultier than the ones used to invade Iraq.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is I'm acknowledging my countries times of loss and defeat. The Great Northern War was not fought between dirty Russian commies and brave saintlike Swedes. I can see that, I can see that my country would have been no match in a pitched war with the Powers during WW2.

I can admit that, now lets see you do it.

[Sarmatian]

I'm glad Sweden didn't get involved in WW2. We didn't need to. There was no threat to us. We were also outmatched. I suspect that if we were invaded, we would put up a Finnish style resistance. The grounds we would've had to use to DOW the Axis would be faultier than the ones used to invade Iraq.



Very good point. It would have been smart if Yugoslavia followed that logic back then. Hitler basically asked for our neutrality and free passage to Greece. But, even though the goverment agreed, there were those nasty demonstrations and a coup because the population rejected even a hint of cooperation with the Nazis. And even after we were occupied, we had to be one of the few countries that put up active resistance - attacking German soldiers, which costed or hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in retribution instead of just limiting ourselves to providing info to allies, occasional sabotage here and there and rescuing an occassional pilot.

WW2 was no place for the little guys, and any smaller country that could've stayed out of it should've stayed out it...

[cegorach]

Ohhh I amm glad seeing the new topic.

I hope for A PROFESSIONAL discussion, but first things first.


@Tribesman


Sorry - some Tankietka's had cannons - but only few.
Wow you mean that Poland had upgraded some of its little tanks by 1939while all the other countries still used just the little machine guns tanks for years after Poland got overrun .
Fascinating ...hmmm...but what about its other tanks that were not little tanks then Krook ?


I know you have problems with Krook, but there are other Poles here too and your remarks are usually not personal, not too much related to the question of real and supposed abuse of facts by Krook , but insulting in general and that is something I am hardly going to tolerate.

So please, close your pretty face unless you will either narrow down the answers somehow and stop abusing the facts on your own.


@SwedishFish

Your knowledge is partial at best, so I will deal with it with pleasure, but mercy as well.



If Poland had better morale, then why did they capitulate so quickly?

Facts, facts, facts.

One. Poland didn't capitulate.

Only cut off garrisons and units did and that is a big difference. 10 % of the army crossed the borders.

Two. It was 35 days of fighting against much larger enemiee, with 2/3 of the army in place only and in very unfavourable conditions.

It could last longer and be more costly, but the decisive factor was always the Soviet invasion and of course Allied inactivity - both importan.

First because it destroyed all startegical planning and most likely saved German XXIInd Panzer Corps from defeat and prevented Poles from forming a new front line to the east from Lwów/L'viv area - so called 'Romanian Bridgehead'.

I can present exhausting information about the situation if you like, but I don't like to waste my time.

Second had two effects. One it saved OKW much problems - they were nervous for sure ( 3rd Mountain Div. was taken almost from the frontine and sent to the west - a mistake which was later regretted). Two thanks to the Soviet spies in France the Soviets knew their invasion wouldn't be so much in danger and they finally commited their forces.

Of course Allied actions were essential to the final victory in 1939, exactly as it was expected of course - actually by everyone.




You would think they would have an Iraq-style insurgent force and NOT the Warsaw ghetto. Hell, Greece put up more of a fight in their occupation.

And what that is supposed to mean ?

Ever heard about Polish Secret State ? Largest underground forces, underground administration, press, theaters, cinemas, schools, courts of law etc - rings a bell ?

I thought it is rather common i.e. EASY TO GET knowledge after all...

I guess those 422-41 villages (Lidice style) were destroyed in reprisal actions not for the guerilla activities as the Germans said (first on September the 5th 1939 if I am not wrong), but I am sure you can give my a reason why they were NOT.

Not to mention the 17 counted uprisings in 1944 including so successfull just like those in Wilno/Vilnius and Lwów/L'viv or so long fighting just like that in Warsaw.


Man, you are realy making a serious mistake - you can still leave this with some dignity if you are going to continue you WILL be humilated with raw numbers alone.


@ now the fnal one






It is important to note that the Poles were decisively beaten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bzura) by the Germans before Russia entered. Sometimes I think too much credit is given to the Russian entry. Thats not to diminish the Polish defense.


If you are reading a source, try to do that to the end.

During the battle only two armies were defeated, one destroyed entirely, one mostly.

It was 1/3 of the army - in theory 9 infantry divisions, 3 cavalry brigades + some territorial defence forces and about 100 of tanks. All in two armies 'Pomorze' and 'Poznań'.

Army 'Pomorze' earlier lost 30 % of its strenght highting Guderian forces, partly because of political issues ( fears of a Nazi coup in Danzig and the creation of the 'Intervention Corps' deployed to far to the north - 2 inf. did and one cav. brig.) and partly due to the nightmarish leadership of the 9th Infantry Division which meant its destruction in three days long fighting.
IN Pomerelia (the corridor) it lost 9th Infantry Division (except a battallion large combined force created from those men who broke through - a small Kampfgruppe you could say), a large part of the 27th Inf. Div and similar size of the 'Pomorska' Cavalry Brigade - in general 1,75 division from 5,5.

So it converged in retreat towards Warsaw with the fresh Army 'Poznań' - 4 inf. divisions and two cavalry brigades plus a number of territorial troops and scout tanks.

From that force in the course of this battle fought from 9th to 24th September only 'Poznań's' cavalry brigades under general Abraham ( 'Wielkopolska' and 'Kresowa' cav. brigs) managed to break the defences of 4th Panzer Division together with much reduced 15th and 25th infantry divs.

However it diedn't conclude the campaign in any way. If we look at the map and the orders given and received by the highest command of Poland at that time we see that both armies were seen more or less as doomed from the start of the battle. They were seen as a diversion with a possibility to retreat to Warsaw and hold there as long as possible.

The critical fighting happened to be in the south-east between forces of Army 'Kraków', Army 'Karpaty', reformed Army 'Modlin', reformed SGO 'Narew' and the remnants of Army 'Prusy' supported with a number of reserve units and modified 'Warsaw' Motorized Brigade (lessons of the first part of the campaign were used and the unit got more tanks and infantry banded together) which created Army 'Lublin'.

The three groups were formed into three fronts which were all supposed to take the positions to the east of Lwów/L'viv. The attmenpts failed, but AFTER the Soviet invasion and mostly DUE TO the Soviet invasion - all large scale leadership was more or less gone and the three fronts were not able to coordinate their activities. Two of those later engaged in the second largest battle of the campaign at Tomaszów Lubelski which even seen the largest tank battle of the defensive war.
The problem was that those groups fought alone and that it happened to be the reality that the German troops between them and Lvov were suffering from a number of problems betwen 16th and 18th September exactly.

It is even more important to remember that Soviet forces in the second part of the battle at Tomaszów were more numerous than German, were engaged in fighting and attacked Polish rearguards taking for example most of their ammunition reserves (from the Northern Front).

So Bzura is very important, but rather as the battle which could mean much more serious German losses and larger forces available in Warsaw and Modlin, but didn't really affect the outcome.
It was the largest battle, it was the battle of lost opportunities, but didn't conclude the campaign and in fact it really slowed down the German forces relieving much of the pressure in the south and pushing the earliest German expectations to continue with the actuall attack past 20th September (according to OKW), but here the Soviets come on the 17th and everything changes - the highest command had to cross the border, all remaing units (circa 30 divisions at that time) were ordered to cross the borders too, morale in some units decreased really badly (but only some - reasons below) and all plans to rebuild some units with available reservists and weaponry coming through Romania or other sources (evacuated, reserve dumps) were abandoned - only 2 infantry divisions and two cavalry brigades were formed ad hoc - not bands of would be marauders for sure because these guys fought the Soviets and the Germans all too well.





You are also including both German and Soviet forces. The soviets entered late in the game, when the major battles had already been fought.


ON the 17th it was about 40 % of the fighting force still in combat. The Soviet attack reduced their morale, but the forces in comabat were the hardest elements of the Polish army and their resolve was bordering fanaticism - worse was with the unarmed reservists, who partly simply went home or crossed the border or were captured.

All in all it was a sizable fighting force and while all earlier German victories gave them victory which they could get anyway, but certainly for much harder price if the Poles would find a way to overcome all difficulties and flaws it was still a force to be treated seriously and apparently it was.

You might find that interesting, but ONLY ONE Polish army was destroyed to the 17th of September - the badly commanded (northern group) and less than half mobilised (southern group) reserve Army 'Prusy', but even this managed to save about 15 % of its force which fought to the fouth week of September.



Maybe this short summary will help a bit.

Army 'Pomorze' had to deploy 1/3 of its force to far to the north and as they were waiting for transport trains (27th inf. div in particular) all busy dealing with the mobilisation delayed under Allied pressure and for other reasons it lost most of the force.
It was destroyed at Bzura.

Army 'Poznań' was intact until the fighting at Bzura where its 'sudden' and unexpected appearence (how German recon could miss TWO whole ARMIES ?)
changed almost the entire plan for the campaign.
It managed to beat 30th and 10th inf. divisions of German 8th Army and achive less important successes here and there, but only 35-40 % of its fighting force was saved in the fighting which lasted to the fourth week of September.

Army 'Łódź' was in most serious danger ( main German offensive), but initially it fought very well (Mokra, Borowa Góra - second seen Polish counterattacks with tanks against German Panzer Divisions with success - one of many examples of superb performance of the Polish army I can give), but it lost a lot while having to retreat on fortified positions fighting the enemy at the same time - political reasons. Later it all fall apart when their commander deserted and the army was outflanked because Army 'Prusy' failed to stop German Panzers.
Later, however a big reversal. Commander of its eastern group gen. Thommee took command and brought it back from the abbyss and the army fought to the end of campaign after Warsaw capitulated.


Army 'Prusy' was half mobilised, or worse. Only its northrn group (13th, 19th, 29th infantry divs. and 'Wileńska' Cavalry Brigade + a battallion of tanks) was quite ready, but it was deployed in parts, one after another and it was rather hard to coordinate the effort under German attack.
Overall it is the only Polish army which was clearly defeated and eliminated before the Soviet attack happened. Its northern group could actually even if not defeat the local German attack (2 Pz. divs.) at least stop it for several days, but that was largerly the fault of its commander. Ironically Dąb-Biernacki wasn't a bad commander erlier - he was really superb in 1920 leading one of the first armoured-motorized raids in history, but commanding a force of this size was too far for him - some people can only receive orders and implement them.

Army 'Kraków' - was the strongest (7-8 inf divs., 1 mountain, one cavalry and one motorized brigade), but it had to use its reserves too early to fight off unexpected Panzer attack from Slovakia - which was actually done very well by colonel Maczek (the very same guy from Falaise in 1944), but meant it was in no position to continue to hold the line, especially with 70 km wide 'Czestochowa gap' in the north - one of several made as the consequence of the delayed mobilisation and cordon defences to stop a new Munich from happening.

In the north there were armies 'Modlin' and SGO 'Narew'.

'Modlin' fought really well with its 2 inf. divisions and two cavalry brigades, but it was no match to the 3rd German Army which could all too easily outflank its recently (from July) fortified positions at Mława. Add to that the fact its Panzer division managed to suprise most of the 8th Infantry Division marching to counterattack (only Sosabowski's regiment didn't lose nerves - the same guy from Arnhem BTW) we have the reason why it fell back towards Modlin. On the other hand Germans seemed a bit too careful not to pursue - apparently their losses had something to do with that, because they spent much time attacking bunkers with minimal 'lost hope' troops left behind - for another two weeks...
Still it reformed with more than 60 % of their forces and fought to the end of the campaign - parts in Modlin and the rest as far as the Tomaszów battle.

SGO 'Narew' was th operational group which was deployed in such way it wasn't capable to help Army 'Modlin' and in fact it was rather overstretched. It later failed to stop Guderian's XIXth corps - in fact it was hardly able to do so being not in the right time and ordered to retreat to the south.
So all Guderin faced was all those 800 men at Wizna later known as Polish Thermophylae against 30 000.
It later fought as a number of groups, mostly in the Northern Front.


IN addition there were reserves of all kinds, but those usually fought in any of the earlier mentioned armies or their reformed successors - some were really exceptional troops like 1st Infantry Division named by Germans the 'Iron Division' - it was one of the elite units in the Polish army togther with cavalry, motorized troops, armoured troops, mountain divisions, border guards (who fought the Soviets, but also the Germans e.g. Węgierska Górka) which German 44th Infantry regiment learnt at Kałuszyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ka%C5%82uszyn).
In fact it is certainly one of those fanatical troops I was talking about - the unit almost ceased to exist fighting to the end, because 'the division named after Józef Piłsudski rather dies than stops fighting' - gotta love those guys.


Later formed armies are:


Army 'Warszawa' which defended Warsaw and Modlin, but what was one of the lost opportunities didn't help in force during the battle at Bzura and it could cuse a lot of mess together with retreating 'kampfgruppen' of the Army 'Łódź'. It included its own large units of a size of 1,5 infantry division with one, additional tank unit.

Army 'Lublin' - supposed to defend Vistula and help in creating a new frontline. To no avail since the exceptionally dry summer made it very easy to cross the largest Polish river as the German sources show all the time.
It was formed around 39th reserve infanty division and half-ready (training in large scale combat), but remodelled 'Warsaw' Motorized Brigade with over 60 tanks (2-3 times more than originally expected) - so it would be an armoured brigade rather than a delaying motorized unit.

Army 'Małopolska' - short lived. Doesn't really matter how it was named. It included one new infantry division.

and Army 'Karpaty' initially very weak expected to fight Slovaks and waiting for two addditional infantry (mountain) divisions, but in the beginning only two, weak mountain divisions, which suprisingly held really well.
It later took southern, isolated part of Army 'Kraków' and was the core of the forces in the 'Romanian bridgehead'.



Here is the best map I could find showing the general situation, just before 17th September

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/wpiwh17ix2mb1.png

I know it is small and rather crowded - there are some small units shown too often, but the general effect is the same as it should be - the fighting was far from over yet, espcially considering the problems which plagued German army at that time - XXIInd Panzer Corps ( 2nd Panzer and 4th Light) had little offensive power with shortages of fuel and little to no tanks.


The most important feature I personally find interesting in the campaign is the easy going recon on German side - first two undiscovered armies in the north, next the strange idea that Warsaw won't be defended, later more problems in fighting in the south.
I realise that for example Army 'Pomorze' was presumed dead after the 9th division was destroyed in the 'corridor' , but forces of the German northern group were fighting its rearguards for a weak after that happened. Surely those were partly from the units which were destroyed or reduced already so maybe the Germans thought they are escaping and they are pursuing while the Poles thought they are delaying a general attack....

The problem is that it was happening all the time after that too - Polish units left behind caused constant trouples attacking repair depots, supply depots, reserves etc. 4th Panzer Division seems the lousiest commanded unit in this way - failure at Mława, hard fighting at Borowa Góra, in danger at Piotrków (saved by incompatence of Dąb-Biernacki) and later it decides to charge at Warsaw with barely any infantry... It also seen the biggest defeat of its rear units with the repair depot destroyed by Army 'Łódź' which was outflanked but was till existing.

Only the fact that Germans could afford those mistakes saved them from their easy-going approach...




If you need to see how the campaign looked like from Polish sice it would be quite like Grmany's defence of 1945, but with little fortifications, less experience and more technical superiority on the side of the enemy.
Every time I read how the German forces are trying to break towards the territory taken by the Allies it reminds me 1939 - same problems with supplies ad fuel, same determination of various 'kampfgruppen' which in fact waw what the Polish divisions were becoming during the fighting retreat.
The less resilent were left behind and the hardest survived, that is why German sources name the second part of the campaign (after 14th) much more costly and difficult.



Jeezz, it really is late - I might spell check it tomorrow, usually I don't do that, but this time I know I will need to...:yes:
Since I mostly wrote from memory (as almost always) I might need to correct some facts too, but I doubt it will be really necessary.

[cegorach]

BTW that test.

I remember posting it several times and people usually were saying it is NOT fair because 90 % of them got Poland as the result.
Some accused me for spreading bias - glad it doesn't happen here.

Besides it is rather easy to send the results in the right direction if you know what country do you want to get.



P.S. Something I forgot to add above, but should be written anyway.

Losses in most of the battles between Germans and Poles were similar. I was amazed, but even if combats seen as heavy where Polish troops were trying to break trhrough German defences the difference isn't large as long as other factors do not change that e.g. airforce, heavy artillery concentrated on a small area of terrain, suprise tank assault and similar.

From the 70 000 fatalities suffered by Polish Army in 1939 most wouldn't happen in the actual fighting, but after and before it. For example 8th and 20th infantry divs of Army 'Modlin' lost many soldiers while suprised by Panzer Division 'Kempf' and when it retreated under Luftwaffe attacks (it had to do that in daytime - the weather in September was spotless for the airforce).
At battles like at Tomaszów despite the Poles lost and despite they were attacking their losses asre around 10-15 % larger and no more. It was surely later rised bexause some people died from wounds, but it seems there is not a large difference in combat performance, especially in the second part of the campaign.

I must recall that for example only about 20 from 200 Polish tanks were destroyed in combat, many were abandoned because of lack of fuel ( some 100 were later used by Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe or SS ) or crossed the border.
The number doesn't include the tankettes which are light, scouting vehicles weaker than German armoured cars and the Polish armoured cars - it is a differnt class of equipment and shouldn't be put together with tanks.
Still there is at least one or two cases of 'tank panic' caused in 1939 by the Polish tankettes which in majority were armed only with a machine gun - the long 20 mm automatic cannon was added only for less than 10 % of the vehicles. It was a new weapon designed for the airforce, polish built destroyers 'Huragan' and 'Orkan' + low level AA/AT defence in infantry/cavalry and new the scouting tanks fast 4TP and swimming PZinż 130.

Together with a number of weapons entering production these were in use only in a few units and had no notable impact except scoring some limited victories here and there.

[seireikhaan]

Well, this thread got quite nasty and personal...

Anyways, I'll just post my test results and slink off... I'll comment, though, that I find it interesting that I got so many lower scores than other people.

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
94%
Poland
69%
Italy
63%
United States
56%
Finland
56%
Germany
50%
France, Free French and the Resistance
50%
Soviet Union
38%
Japan
19%

[Tribesman]

Hey cegroach what did I write that was incorrect , did all the comtries have machine gun armed tanks ?
Did they keep using them long after Poland was overun ?
Did Poland have cannon armed tanks ?
Were Polands cannon armed tanks(apart from the upgraded tankettes and slight variations using swedish guns) absolutely identical to those used by other allied and even axis countries i.e same makes and models ?
Were a large number of the modern cannon armed tanks kept in reserve and then a significant proportion of them driven into Romania ? (not of course counting the 17s that France ,Belgium and Finland also used as they were not exactly modern were they)

So what is the problem with what I wrote ?
Is it far more factual than Krooks attempts ?

But anyway heres a big up to swedishfish whose countries industries made some nice tanks ...OK some of them wasn't really tanks because they only had little machine guns and not big guns that go bang .
They supplied two thirds of Ireland tanks for the worldwar 2 period , and they were both still in service in the 1950s :yes: Which is pretty good going , not quite as good as the armoured cars they sent though as they remained in service till 1972 .
So since this topic is for comparisons of what was the best armed forces in the WW2 period I would nominate the swedish , they had weapons that everyone wanted to copy , decent aircraft , no morale or command problems and they never lost a battle .


But Cegroach if you want to explore the Polish armour angle , didn't the upgraded tankettes knock the hell out of the czech tanks that made up a large portion of the German armouredforce .
And don't you think the main problem with the Polish armour was that it was stripped out of the regular divisions where it was supposed to be and deployed as independant companies in penny packets or kept in reserve until it was all over...a bit like the French did eh:yes:

[KarlXII]

So since this topic is for comparisons of what was the best armed forces in the WW2 period I would nominate the swedish , they had weapons that everyone wanted to copy , decent aircraft , no morale or command problems and they never lost a battle

Cheers :2thumbsup:

Do not mess with Sweden and their ray gun tanks!

[cegorach]

I mean the general attitude, the unnecessary irony which is as in other threads not against something what Krook did write in a wrong way, but pushing it further.

Much like with the fascist comment in the Backroom. Sorry but you are using too many general comments in response to something which is/might be wrong ( I am not really reading Krook's posts - not from contempt, but because it is not my problem to discuss with him) often pushing the joke a bit too far.


Hey cegroach what did I write that was incorrect , did all the comtries have machine gun armed tanks ?
Did they keep using them long after Poland was overun ?
Did Poland have cannon armed tanks ?
Were Polands cannon armed tanks(apart from the upgraded tankettes and slight variations using swedish guns) absolutely identical to those used by other allied and even axis countries i.e same makes and models ?
Were a large number of the modern cannon armed tanks kept in reserve and then a significant proportion of them driven into Romania ? (not of course counting the 17s that France ,Belgium and Finland also used as they were not exactly modern were they)

So what is the problem with what I wrote ?
Is it far more factual than Krooks attempts ?




But Cegroach if you want to explore the Polish armour angle , didn't the upgraded tankettes knock the hell out of the czech tanks that made up a large portion of the German armouredforce .
And don't you think the main problem with the Polish armour was that it was stripped out of the regular divisions where it was supposed to be and deployed as independant companies in penny packets or kept in reserve until it was all over...a bit like the French did eh:yes:



Hmm... There were 880 tanks used by Poland + over 100 armoured cars making it one of the six largest armoured forces in the world.

From that 100 were old Renault Ft 17s which were not used in combat, except once and were not supposed to be used.

Only 200-250 were real tanks, but that includes about 50 two tower tanks with machine guns only which were in training bases (fought during the campaign only because the reserve and training centers were evacuated - usually against the Soviets.

Only about 100 were modern 7 TPs with Bofors 37 mm AT cannons - an excellent wepon for sure - deployed in two battalions.

IN addition there were 45 or so French Renault R-35s - slow infantry tanks bought for the credit from France and delivered in time (another 60 didn't arive in time) - hardly the best choice, but considering the credit could be only spent on French weaponry, Polish factories were not capable to produce enough equipment in time (plans were to deploy 800 modern, home produced tanks to 1941) and better to have something than not - it was at least a wepon to be used.

Finally there were overexploited Vickers used by both motorized brigades.


Now about the companies. Personally I wouldn't agree in the assessment. Tankettes were of little use for anything else than recon - their armour was too weak and the tanks were too bad to form a large combat unt which would serve little purpose since the Polish doctrine assessed Poland cannot afford an armoured division - only motorized brigades to slow the enemy down (worked fine with the 10th motorized of Maczek).
Simply Poland was not going to attack with a massive concentration of tankettes - their only purpose was providing some armoured recon.
Modernised tankettes (something had to be done with this wepon - it more sensible than melting them down) were supposed to act as tank destroyers aka American and German tank destroyers of the 2nd WW so would stay in small groups after they were rearmed (not all for sure, but 1/3 or something around this number).
IN 1939 there were too few of such tankettes to deploye them together in in some AT companies, but that would be their purpose.

Polish tanks wouuld most likely never create larger groups than in regiment size forces 7TPs would be etiher assigned to the motorized brigades or form general reserve units.
Poland couldn't afford racing with Germany and their fate would be supporting corps and army size forces and adding some firepower to the motorized brigades (ready and on their way - probably around 6-8 to the end of 1940) which were seen as mobile reserves, 'blocking' brigades deployed to slow German panzer and light divisions together with cavalry brigades.

IN 1939 actually one such group was supposed to appear in the space between Army 'Łódź' and 'Kraków' - a combined force of three cavalry brigades with a tank battalion (one of two 7TPs) and the 'Warsaw' Motorized Brigade. Unfortunatelly there was not enough time.

The ultimate fate of the tanks in Polish army would be:

tankettes - light armoured recon and AT destroyers,

7TPs with two turrents - trining and combat with one machine gun replaced with 20 mm automatic cannon, but their use would be very limited.

Vickers - rearmed with 20 mm cannon or 37 mm Bofors. Ultimately phased out - were too old.

Renault R-35s - infantry support, not good for anything else.

In 1939 they were kept among reserves in the 'romanian bridgehead' and only one company seen some combat. After Soviet invasion and the evacuation order crossed the border serving later in Romanian army (this one unit doubled their armoured force...).

7TPs single turrent - first deployed in larger numbers replacing Vickers for example in independent units and as a part of new motorized brigades.
Later their production was supposed to be replaced with heavier 10 TPs (bettr armour and weapons), while 7Tps would be rearmed with the new 47 mm AT cannon (in 1939 only working prototypes) and named 9 TP.


So there would be no massive concentration of the tanks, rather a large number of rearguard brigades supposed to slow down enemy divisions.
It was a fine design, actually we see that with Maczek's 'Black Brigade' reducing XXIInd Panzer Corps' attack to a crawl.

The fact that suchunits were not capable of providing offensive capabilities was seen during the course of the campaign. That is why the 'Warsaw' brigade amassed all available armoured vehicles and tried to create another motorized infantry battalion becoming an ad hoc made armoured brigade.
It fought well during the first battle for Tomaszów Lubelski and actually serve its new purpose fine.

IN the doctrine and planning the Poles were employing and planning to employ a doctrine similar to something used by Germany after 1943.
That would be helped by better decigns and one large change which was the use of radiostations in high numbers as planned (one of the priorities).

So nothing fancy, but sufficient as long as the Allies did something, Poland could never afford an arms race with Germany - it coldn't risk its economy to break.



BTW

A good weabside (http://www.wojsko18-39.internetdsl.pl/wrzesien/index.htm) about Polish used weaponry in 1939 - some are prototypes only or used in a small number( usually with a *).

Only in Polish, but images can be easily understood.

From left to right - armoured vehicles (tanks, armoured cars, armoured trains, tactical references), small arms (machine guns, rifles, submachine guns, pistols, AT rifles etc.), artillery ( light, heavy, superheavy - siege, mortars, howeitzers, cannons, AT cannons, AA artillery) and used on the airplanes or for tother purpose ( radiostations, baloons, sabres, bombs etc).

[cegorach]

Addon... I have checked some sources about the projects involving the tankettes.

It seems that ALL were supposed to be rearmed as light AT destroyers

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/tks20mm.gif

At least 400 newest automatic cannons model A, mark 38 were ordered (called heaviest machine guns wz 38 A in Poland) for that purpose alone - only abot 50-60 were produced and between 24 and 44 tankettes were rearmed in time.

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/nkm20mm.gif


There was however a newer design. An open topped light tank destroyer/assualt cannon TKS-D.
Two experimental vehicles were delivered and fought in the 10th Motorized Brigade of colonel Maczek.

Both were destroyed in fighing to 10th September.

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/tksdrys.gif

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/tksd.jpg

It is quite probably this design would be another large use for the little tank.
Much like lightly armoured German and American tank destroyers it was not a full tank for sure, but would add some firepower to the most mobile elements of the Polish army.

At that time the tank force would receive modernised 7TPs named 9 TP, new light/medium tanks called 10 TP and 14 TP as well as the real, medium tank with 76 mm cannon. All to 1942 as the industrialisation plans were expected to end.

[Tribesman]

OK just a couple of things there Cegroach .
Them tankettes
Now about the companies. Personally I wouldn't agree in the assessment. Tankettes were of little use for anything else than recon
That was their intended role wasn't it , what they was designed for , they were supposed to form the armoured reconnaisance element of the regular (not mountain)infantry divisions . Their removal into independant companies not only wasted them it denied the infantry divisions their use .


From that 100 were old Renault Ft 17s which were not used in combat, except once and were not supposed to be used.

Whereas the French did use them and the Finns mainly used them as an instant pillbox .


Renault R-35s - infantry support, not good for anything else.

An infantry support tank is an infantry support tank , it is what it is .
The French used them for that and the French tank was better armed than the tank the British used in that role(though not as well armoured) . the British were still using the same tank in the same role 3 years later .
Which kinda comes round again to the tankettes and the vehicles others used in the same role .
The British ones like the Polish were just little 2 man machine gun armed tanks . OK the British screwed up by not managing to transport many of the units to France in time which left many of the divisions without that element , but they didn't actualy strip that element from the division did they . Interestingly enough though two years later the British are using the little recon tanks (without up arming them) as tanks in armoured divisions .

However since you mention the arms deal with France , which is just the same as any other credit/lease deal .There was a slightly contentious issue over that wasn't there , in as much as one tank type the Polish wanted was not supplied in the numbers they requested .
But once again that is normal since the French like any other country would only ship the weapons when it felt its own requirement was filled and there was suffiecient spare for export .

[PanzerJaeger]

@cegorach

You honestly believe that Poland could have stopped German forces after Bzura without the Soviet Union's entrance? I read all that you posted, and none of it demonstrates how that could have been done.

Poland had a strong military, and could have potentially created a big problem for German forces. However, unfortunate decisions on the tactical and organizational level led them to be completely out-fought and their capitol surrounded. Soviet entry simply hastened the inevitable.




What about the US military versus that of the USSR? I'd be rooting for the Americans, but my money would go on the USSR.

[Adrian II]

Hurra for intelligent, factual discussion, brothers. I have nothing to contribute, but I love to read those long well-reasoned posts that lay out all the known facts in a detached manner. Kudos. :bow:

[cegorach]

Them tankettes
That was their intended role wasn't it , what they was designed for , they were supposed to form the armoured reconnaisance element of the regular (not mountain)infantry divisions . Their removal into independant companies not only wasted them it denied the infantry divisions their use .


The companies were attached to infantry divisions, so what is the point ?

They became 'independent' only for the general purpose, not on tactical or operational scale. There were no independent companies fighting on their own, unless were attached to army level HQs to be assigned wherever their commanders needed them.




Whereas the French did use them and the Finns mainly used them as an instant pillbox .

If I am not wrong in one unit + after the defeat in Flandres (were desparate).

In Poland there are two known uses.

One was to block the gate to the old fortress of Brest. Second - a small number escorted supplies for the Northern Front and a couple of old FT 17s seen some combat when Soviet forces attacked the supply columns.



An infantry support tank is an infantry support tank , it is what it is .
The French used them for that and the French tank was better armed than the tank the British used in that role(though not as well armoured) . the British were still using the same tank in the same role 3 years later .
Which kinda comes round again to the tankettes and the vehicles others used in the same role .

Of course. The problem was that R 35s were bought because there was nothing else worth buying - their use was at least problematic considering their use according to the Polish armoured doctrine R 35s were too slow to fight in dealying actions and too weak and slow to fight enemy tanks (their cannons were just too old).
That is why the single unit formed from those tanks seen limited combat only at the end of the campaign.
Noone had any illusion about their combat capabilities.

IN Poland we see no concept of an infantry support tank - it was seen as rather a waste of necessary resources. There were some plans to build assualt tanks in the future ( 14 TP to some degree), but AT use was seen as the most important one.



However since you mention the arms deal with France , which is just the same as any other credit/lease deal .There was a slightly contentious issue over that wasn't there , in as much as one tank type the Polish wanted was not supplied in the numbers they requested .
But once again that is normal since the French like any other country would only ship the weapons when it felt its own requirement was filled and there was suffiecient spare for export .

Of course. If there is nothing you really want you take what you can.

100 R 35s were bought and that is about all when it comes to armoured equipment ( there were also some H 35s, but proved badly armed and too weakly armoured, H 39s were not yet available) - the really important equipment were the airplanes ( 100 Battles, several Hurricanes and over 100 Moranes) - the problems which plagued domestic designes ( P 50 Jastrząb or especially the failed project - P 38 Wilk) meant the Polish air force needed something before home produced fighter planes are finally available.



Generally I see little purpose indiscussing that with you. I agree with almost everything and I feel it is useless to look for something to argue about just for the sake of argument.
Perhaps I will see something I feel should be corrected, but basically it is all Tribesman.



BTW The machine gun armed armoured vehicles serve their purpose , especially if the enemy doesn't expect it to appear.

Just like this 'Kubuś' ( Jake) armoured car bild by the underground before the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/warsaw%20uprising%20museum/IMG_1673a.jpg





@
@cegorach

You honestly believe that Poland could have stopped German forces after Bzura without the Soviet Union's entrance? I read all that you posted, and none of it demonstrates how that could have been done.


Not forever, but for at least one-two months. I don't share the optimistic plans to defend to the spring of 1940.

Anyway it much depended on what would happen in the western front - OKW was 'quite' worried about it to say the least.

Polish army was never supposed to stop the Germans forever in 1939, that couldn't happen. However it was sufficient to say that it would take a long time to remove the defences formed in the 'romanian bridgehead'.

Taking all the data into account - there were sufficient forces to form 8 division strong army already + anything which would break through German forces to the north-west of Lvov.

Factos which would matter:

- German logistical problems of all kinds,
- different weather,
- worse roads in the entire eastern Poland,
- difficult terrain conditions in that area (numerous ravines, hills, forests and rivers),
- prepared defences,
- new weaponry coming from Romania (already delivered to Romania and on its way),
- guerillas disrupting German supply lines - from 14th September the attacks were more organised. It was expected that a part of the country will fall under occupation for a time and sabotage tems were trained for that purpose - Poland had much experience with such attacks - mainly against the Soviets (in 1920s and 1930s), Czechs, Lithuanians and in once cooperation with Hungarians (Operation 'Łom' in March 1939).




Poland had a strong military, and could have potentially created a big problem for German forces. However, unfortunate decisions on the tactical and organizational level led them to be completely out-fought and their capitol surrounded. Soviet entry simply hastened the inevitable.

Considering that Poland wasn't and couldn't win ALONE you are right, BUT the question is how long and with what losses.

I don't understand what the capital means in that opinion of yours ?

After all there was nothing which wasn't in the south - highest authorities, most of reserve officer corps and reserve soldiers, several highest commands, the whole airforce, most of evacuated arsenals, sufficient supplies - everything was already in the south.
It included over 200 000 reservists and that number alone should mean something.

It was not like there was this Warsaw and nothing else mattered.

Even OKW DIDN'T EXPECT the city to be defended at all, so even the Germans didn't see Warsaw as the most critical target.

Remember that only after the Soviets attacked it became the largest defended stronghold - 'romanian bridgehead' was gone and Lvov capitulated to the Soviets on the 22nd September (after Khruschov and others agreed to allow the evacuation of the garrison to Romania - the promise which of course they didn't keep).


Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.:inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

[cegorach]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s

Ironic, but strange not. The 35s were a part of the general reserve, while 17s were ... something between junk and very, very last resort.

35s would see a lot of combat if the 'romanian bridgehead' was attacked. After all another unit was supposed to appear soon coming from Constanca.



and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .

It seems it was a terrible irony, but I have better...

There was a french fighter copying the designs of P 7, P 11 and P 24 family of fighters. It was one of Loire models , don't remember the number right now.

When Polish fighter pilots were shon they are expected to use it in combat in France, most of them thought it is a stupid joke, because even if P 11s and similar were most modern fighters at their time in 1940, in France nobody was willing to fly an obsolate plane like this,which was even worse than P 11c...
Especially with over 100 Moranes bought before the war which were supposed to be given finally.



But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .

Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.

Generally Finns wwre experts in using wepons from various sources - much of their artillery in 1941 was using ex-Polish cannons delivered by Germans, not to mention the wonders their pilots did with the poor Brewster Buffalo.




Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

True with the Bulgarians their armoured brigade used all kind of weaponry, but I like something more.
PZL 37 Łoś and PZL 23 Karaś used by Romanians over Stalingrad and later against the Axis troops in 1944.
Or the Pz V Panthers used against Germans in the Warsaw Uprising - unfortunatelly I cannot say if the story about a captured Pz VI Tiger is true (it was damaged and immobile so wasn't used), that would be something, almost like the Japanese rifles used by Poles in 1920 ( Siberian Brigade).

Or maybe the Polish AT rifles captured in 1939 used by German paras in Belgium or by the Italians against the Poles in North Africa would win the contest ? :beam:



BTW TKS tankette was recently found in Norway - a local guy rebuilt it as a tractor, but agreed to sell if for a low price so it is coming back.:yes:

[PanzerJaeger]

Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.:inquisitive:


I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.

However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties. Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura, the 35,000 captured plus casualties lost in defense of Modlin, the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock, the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska, the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers. :beam:

Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.

Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.

As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)

[Kagemusha]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

Well our artillery was also still using lot of these babies during winter war:

https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6099/87k95da0.jpg

The models name was 87 k 95. It didnt have any kind of recoil mechanism and had to be re aimed after each shot. the first figure comes from the date when it was taken into use, 1887. Now that Finnish army used lot of stuff, doesnt mean that anyone with any kind of opportunity to use something else instead shouldnt have done just that, specially in winter war, our army used basicly anything they could get their hands on.~;)
The "Russian Vickers" was the T-26.It was the main tank of our single armoured division for the majority of continuation war. Fortunately Finns captured couple KV-1 heavy tanks early on and the fate of those tanks was to drive in front and gather hits from the enemy, while the T-26 would only come out once the heavy tanks would have spotted the enemy to shoot and then scoot again.While the Jaeger infantry tried to keep up with the speed with their bicycles. This was the Finnish take on Blitzkrieg during WWII.:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.

Yes the T-26 , both Poland and Russia bought the licence to make their own ,which made it easier for the Finns to later change their english built and armed Vickers into English built russian armed tanks (after re arming them initially with swiss weapons)

[cegorach]

I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.


Fine, but considering that Warsaw is close to the border it is rather pointless.

As quickly as the 8th September the plan was to converge towards the 'romanian bridgehead' - at that time Warsaw was not even under siege that is why Army 'Modlin' was able to cross the rivers in that area and move south - it later formed a part of the Northern Front which frought to the end ot the fourth week of September at Tomaszów against Germans and Soviets.

German offensive basically stopped around 14th September they had to regroup and deal with the unexpected developments at Bzura. At that time Wehrmacht finally had to deal with logistical problems of all kinds moving further and fruther from the borders.
In addition OKW was concerned about the western front despite French and British inactivity. They didn't know there will be no offensive and acted accordingly - each mile more to the east means another mile further from the western front.
Besides the German command was notorious in making mistakes in judgement.
Two armies on Bzura were a suprise, same like equally large forces at Tomaszów, the 'Polesie' Group and various others and that despite the superiority in the air (night marching might have something to do with it).
Almost every single battle in the later part of the campaign seen confusion on the German side which could be dealt with thanks to superior mobility and the Soviet attack.
That means if they expected to be ready to attack in the south after the 20th of September it is safe to assume more time would be necessary to continue with the attack.




However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties.

This place were considered a bastion after 9th-10th September so obviously was supposed to fight as long as possible, WHILE the real frontline would be in the south.



Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura,

Who were doomed anyway - as I said before. Only if the battle was coordinated in much better way a large part of this force would join defences of Warsaw and Modlin.


the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock,


Kock ? A nice example, for sure - considering that the force was almost completely formed after the Soviet Invasion and was cut off from Romania and Hungary.

Mind that even Warsaw's capitulation didn't change much for those soldiers - there was no drop in the morale of this group - 2,5 divisions.

Only after the force used up all artillery ammunition defeating 13th Motorized Division at Kock it had no other choice but to capitulate.




the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska,

Do you know where it is ? ON THE BALTIC COASTLINE. In other words the most isolated place in Poland, cut off in first two days of the campaign.

Besides there were also 3000 men who capitulated in October in Hel.



the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers. :beam:



You must have forgotten about OVER 400 000 soldiers who capitulated in Tomaszów area or in the eastern Poland (mainly southern) or about 120 000 men who crossed the borders (mainly southern).
IN addition thousands of reservists (as much as 100 000) went home after the Soviet attack - not everyone had the will to fight abroad and many of those men were Belorussians or Ukrainians and had less reasons to fight outside the country (fought well against the Germnas, though).





Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.


OK. One after another.

Morale - that would be a blow, but Warsaw was cut off earlier and the soldiers knew what to expect. Notice that even despite the Soviet attack (which was much heavier blow to morale since it erazed any hopes for a successful defence) thousands of soldiers were fighting with even greater desperation.

According to the Abwehr which made the evaluation of the Polish army before the war. Polish officer corps was considered 'fanatical' and certainly despite the report was lacking much data in several areas, here it is very close to the truth, there were sufficiently many examples to back it up.

Even when fighting for honour only and without any chance to win morale was ket high in 1939, 1940 (after the fall of France more Poles evacuated and continued fighting than the French despite much smaller numbers in 1940) or especially in 1944 and 1945.
After all the Parachute Brigade fought very well at Arnhem even if it was close to a mutiny learning it will not support the Uprising in Warsaw (something it was formed to do), but somewhere in the Netherlands, a place - no offence to anyone - nobody really cared.
At the same time there is no doubt that the Polish units fought well after they learnt it is all for nothing - Yalta agreements were revealed - even the 2nd Polish Corps which was consisting mainly from Poles living in the areas given to the Soviets, even the unit in the Corps formed from ethnic Lithuanians mainly not even from Poland.

Although the soldiers fighting in the second part of the war in 1939 were less resilent it was more than sufficient.




Administration was evacuated, Warsaw was no longer a center of such activities.

Industry. There was no such impact - factories in Warsaw were not working at rate which would see any change.
Defence would be built on supplies evacuated to the south and coming from Romania, ammo stockiles were sufficient for more than three months.

Manpower ? Are you kidding ? Most of reservists were waiting for weaponry to be assigned and units to be formed, there was NO such shortage for sure - at least 400 000 reservists were in available.



Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.

As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)


The question of morale - I have dealth with that above fine, enough, but all things cosidering it was sufficiently strong to carry on.

Most of the soldiers who fought at that time were as hard as nails and even the cathastrophe of the Soviet invasion affected only some units.
As long as there was any hope for victory the fighting would continue, after all even without such hope (to win in Poland, obviously there was hope for the final victory anyway) we seen operational groups trying to get to Romania and Hungary (or Lithuania and Latvia - e.g. Reserve Cavalry Brigade 'Wołkowyjsk' or Wilno operational area) or without such options (Kleeberg's Operational Group 'Polesie') the fighting was continued until it was possible to achieve any results - a succesful escape or starting guerilla activity - much of the weaponry later used by the resistence was stockpiled in hidden places according to the orders.
Guerilla war was the last considered possibility - the underground was created according to the secret order on the 27th September 1939 with its center in Warsaw according to the orders received during the secret mission flown by the prototype bomber 'Sum'.




Basically the main question was if the capitulation of Warsaw would be a sufficiently heavy blow to the morale to break the will to fight.
I don't think so - one thing noone seriously can question is the will to fight.
It was more if the fighting can bring the final victory - only units completely cut off capitulated and that happened ussually when the situation was hopeless.
In the later part of the campaign the much reduced divisions (30 overall, with 20 formed divisions to the east of Vistula) were in fact 'Kampfgruppe' like structures - units smaller in number, but consisiting from mostly frontline elements, the combatants - the parts o the divisions not immediatelly useful in combat were discarted which meant the remaing forces were still dangerous and two that their combat capabilities were limited in time. Because more than sufficient resurces were already in place (Luftwaffe was directed elsewhere and frankly it did poor job with the railways) it was the question if there would be enough time to form new divisions and reform the old.
According to the information I have to my disposal I can say for sure there were such resources in every important area including the time.
Battle of Bzura bought time for the rest of the army and the state, similar was the purpose of the 'bastions' left behind like Warsaw, Modlin, Brest and others.
ON the 17th September forces sufficient t defend the 'romanian brdgehead' were already there - 2 division sized force with 100 airplanes, 70+ tanks and sufficient AA artillery. First line included pioneer units which were preparing defence positions and destroying approaches which could be used to those.
The problem was that noone expected the Soviet Invasion and there was no question of defence from that direction.

German highest command couldn't prevent such developments, even if it gave it the highest priority - most of their forces were locked in combat and the single useful large unit i.e. 5th Panzer Division was recovering from losses and stuck on bad roads with a number of mechanical failures and logistical issues stopping it from entering combat even when it was desperately needed (by the XXIInd Panzer Corps).
The same situation concerned all other considered forces - first offensive actons would be possible after 28th September and I don't mean Warsaw's capitulation which wouldn't happen so soon without the Soviet Attack.
That gives at least 11 days to create solid defences and evacuate more resources where necessary, but two weeks would be a better guess.


All this means that the fighting would be continued for more than another month if not more.

I doubt it would be carried on through the wintertime - the probability might be too small, but not unlikely - but at least not 100 000+ men would be evacuated, but rather 300 000 and German problems would be much larger than in reality, so their losses.



Of course that would happen only if the Soviets didn't attack which was possible on at least one condition.

No declaration in Abbeville which was a fatal mistake bordering a betrayal and a suicidal stupidity.
Stalin was too much an opportunist to attack where the fighting was raging, he wouldn't commit his forces in a campaign which could cost him something, actually he only did attack becuse of the Allied secret declaration and German information about the fall of Warsaw and the red Army suffered sizable losses in the result including 447 (!!!) tanks...

[Husar]

Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me. ~D

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

And then I would also like to throw in the dutch, they weren't really a major power and when I asked my dad what they had to defend their borders at the start of the war he jokingly said a few men on bicycles although that could well be true. However when the dutch marine infantry arrived in Rotterdam from overseas(if I understand that correctly they were quickly recalled?) they apparently put up quite a fight and made the germans bomb the town quite a bit to finally defeat them(didn't they run out of ammunition as well?). And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.

Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states whose economical power basically won the war for the allies one might say, I find it quite amazing how they could go from not much(especially the army air force was in a rather bad shape at the beginning of WW2) to large carpet bombing operations, buiding more ships than the others could sink and also outnumbering their enemies on land, not to mention the atomic bomb, which, despite the stunning german technologies, the US got first(well, the scientists have a lot of german family names, but still ~D ).

Finally some people mentioned swedish tanks which I didn't know existed back then. I know Sweden has made some amazing planes and ships since WW2 which I also find quite fascinating, especially since they can compete with some quite larger countries in that regard, but I had no idea they built tanks in WW2 as well.

About the whole Poland debate, I don't know enough about that, just like I prefer the later middle ages with their shiny plate armour, I prefer the later war period with the big armoured tanks (I must have some armour fetish ~D ).

edit: almost forgot about the quiz results:

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.

British and the Commonwealth 75%
Italy 69%
Finland 63%
France, Free French and the Resistance 56%
Poland 50%
Germany 44%
United States 44%
Soviet Union 13%
Japan 13%

I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

[cegorach]

Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me. ~D

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed

Bad is not the right word, they were terrible - weak armour (especially with much resilent steel they were using), bad doctrine and bad armament.
Japanese Type 89B might be the worst medium tank of the war...

Still they achived wonder with that equipment initially, were mad/stubborn enough to somehow carry them to inaccessible places noone expected any heavier equipment.

Besides - which I find especially funny considering all this nonsense about Polish cavalry charging tanks - their tanks were in fact charged by American cavalry during the Phillippines campaign.







I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

Several reasons with superior design as most likely a less important one.

Regardless of that the Germans made mistakes designing and producing too many types of tanks and armoured vehicles in too many versions.
So were a pure waste of resources, time and fuel - e.g. Konigtiger or Jagdtiger, not to mention Maus or the insane Ratte - 100+ t WTF were they thinking ?:dizzy2:





And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.

Virtually every army has such elite formations and surely in combat most of them fought exceptionally well compared to 'average' units.
Urban environment is exceptionally useful for that purpose.


BTW I found something really ironic.

Westerplatte - the slightly fortified Polish outpost in Danzig which was defended for a week against 10 times larger German forces with a loss of 16 men only in 1945 German units occupied that area and fought for... a week too.

There is a story coming from Soviet sources that they surrendered learning that a Polish brigade will be sent to fight them (which just finished fighting in Gdynia few miles to the north).
That would really be something - a complete change of places like this doesn't happen too often.



Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start,

There is more than one situation when the Soviets caused much more losses than they suffered, especially in the later part of the war - the offensives in Moldavia and in western Poland-eastern Germany for example.

Germans tended to win tactical victories, but had problems with actually winning something which really mattered.




I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

Italians were unlucky to enter the war with so outdated equipment, weak industy and too much ambition.

Their defeats in Northern Africa are a bit overrated since in such environment numrical superiority doesn't translate into something tangible.
Slower moving Italians were simply cut off by motorized enemies and forced to surrender.
The loss of the infantry was also quite important factor to Rommel's demise.

On the other hand their mobile and elite formations performed quite well, especially with their terrible tanks similar to 2 year earlier designes used by other top 6 armoured forces ( Soviet Union, Germany, France, Japan, Poland) for example tankettes were still all too numerous in late 1940.

Another misfortune - the Greek campaign was initially due to a total disregard of the basic combat rules - they attacked with roughly 8 divisions which was supposed to win the war and later got stuck in the mountains where lower level tactical experience or determination mattered more.

Finally the Soviet campaign - armed with obsolete weapons and facing the full strenght of the 'Little Saturn' - a recipe for a disaster...

Italy was the weakest major power for sure and they fought in some worst places in the war, just like the French they are really underrated when it comes to some exceptionally well fought battles and skirmishes.


Personally the more I learn about this war I am more convinced that hardly anyone could be seen as a superior fighting force - there were always factors which make such claims not exactly justified.

[Husar]

Well, nobody's perfect, I guess everyone had a few successes or defeats here and there but if you try to find an average success rating I would think there are quite a few differences and then you try to find out what these differences were. Just looking at the casualty figures of the war one could say the soviet success had something to do with manpower, they lost so many, yet still outnumbered the german forces heavily. I think the more you outnumber an enemy the less losses you take might also apply since you have a lot more firepower and even if you can't hit a thing the enemy will be extremely disturbed by the amount of lead and explosives you throw into their general direction. That doesn't mean the soviets couldn't hit a thing, they even had the best snipers overall, I just think at some point it becomes hard for the defenders to stop the mighty steamroll.

[PanzerJaeger]

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

As good as the late war German armour was - and it was very good - those ratios have more to do with skill and experience than anything else. German tankers were simply amazing, in a class of their own.

The reason the ratios aren't 20:1 is that the USSR actually had some very good tanks. The T34/76 and T34/85 were extremely solid tanks. They came into their own at a time when the Pz.IV was the main German medium tank. I've read a lot about armoured combat in the East and there is a consant refrain of German commanders in Pz.IVs, Pz. IIIs, StuGs, etc outmanuevering their Soviet rivals, only to have their repeated shots bounce right off. Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy - things would have been dire indeed.

Tank warfare in the East is often characterized as a David and Goliath struggle, with the lowly T-34 fighting the mammoth Tiger. While this was true in some circumstances, with Tigers pulling off amazing victories against far greater forces, most of the Panzer Korps was fighting in inferior tanks - yet still managed the success that they did.

When it comes to the big cats, such as the Tiger, Panther, King Tiger, and some of the big tank destroyers, their biggest enemies were themselves. In proper working order, they were amazingly effective against far greater forces.

Unfortunately for the Germans, late war pressures meant an increase in production faults and logistical issues. As you mentioned, that meant that these beasts succumbed to mechanical breakdowns or a lack of logistical support more often than enemy fire. Also, the growing Soviet air presence became increasingly deadly to German AFVs of all types. (It was never as big of an issue as it was on the Western Front, where German tanks could barely manuever at all.)

It is also imporant to mention that tank versus tank combat was not as typical as portrayed. While plenty of it went on, assaults against enemy infantry and fortified positions were far more common experiences. Commanders typically wanted to preserve their tanks for armoured thrusts, and prefered to engage enemy armour with tank destroyers, AT guns, or other methods.


Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states

The Russian military became better as the war progressed. It never quite reached the level of German military thinking, but far surpassed the other allies.

The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manuever in the East. In the begining, the Germans encircled and destroyed enormous armies. Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk, Manstein and other German commanders were able to pull off some amazing tactical victories against huge odds, such as Kharkov.

However, a tactical victory that would have been a huge blow to an equally sized military meant very little to the Russian command. They simply pulled back, wrote another hundred thousand soldiers off the books, and pressed on with their war of attrition.

It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war.


I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat.

[Tribesman]

*waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*
But they were bad , too many political appointees and too many crazy objectives . They managed OK despite all their big losses , but after the 8th army was destroyed morale completely fell apart .
One notable achievement hey did make was putting all the British battleships in the med out of action which led the British to launch a major operation with the heavy escort consisting of an old battleship armed with Quaker guns, needles to say that the British operation failed with big losses .

[Husar]

Thanks for the answers, few more things I came up with:

1. Were the dutch bicycles superior to those the finns used? How decisive were bicycles in the outcome of the war for both countries? :sweatdrop:
Ok, I can't really see a superior dutch bicycle stopping even a Panzer II but that the Finnish infantry could keep up with their tanks using bicycles could have been decisive, maybe they even used those superior dutch bicycles.*

2. I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks? Obviously it did happen, but apparently more accidental than wanted, I wonder why? Today it seems pretty normal and I'm not aware of any modern tank destroyers, dividing things into heavy armour with tiny guns and medium armoured vehicles with big guns seems a bit weird and it seems only logical to me to combine the two to get the best out of both worlds. I wonder what the reasons were not to do that.

3. Firing in movement I read was not really working well back then due to the lack of automatic stabilizers like modern tanks have them, from what I read, even the T-72 didn't have any which was a major disadvantage in the first Gulf War because they had to stop to fire. Is that true or were there any attempts at stabilizing the guns during movement?

4. I'm not really that much into the sea warfare but I always wondered how it came to be that the german navy seemed to do mostly submarine warfare but also built big battleships, which were apparently superior to most of the british ships, but hardly ever used them for anything else but hunting convoys or lying around in some remote port until some commandos or planes destroyed them. Seems like a waste of ressources just like sending the Bismarck into the middle of the Atlantic where the british managed to destroy it, why was there no attempt to gather all ships and sort of finally duke it out with the royal marine to perhaps secure the channel for germany? If that wasn't possible to win then I wonder why they built those big ships in the first place and didn't just stick to submarines? Perhaps one of Hitler's weird commands similar to how they wasted ressources on other huge projects like the V1 and V2 which basically existed because he was acting like a spoiled kid who got a slap in the face?

And finally, what role did south america play in this war? I heard here and there about this or that country aligning with this or that side but I have absolutely no idea what the individual countries did exactly, except that argentinia invited germans to come over after the war. :shrug:

*taking this too serious could result in major brain damage

[Kagemusha]

Thanks for the answers, few more things I came up with:

1. Were the dutch bicycles superior to those the finns used? How decisive were bicycles in the outcome of the war for both countries? :sweatdrop:
Ok, I can't really see a superior dutch bicycle stopping even a Panzer II but that the Finnish infantry could keep up with their tanks using bicycles could have been decisive, maybe they even used those superior dutch bicycles.*

To come to think of, im not quite sure where the Finnish bicycles were manufactured. But im positive those were not taken from the Russians, like the tanks were:clown:
Actually bicycle wasnt half bad for the supporting infantry for the tanks, to travel with. During WWII there was no such thing as IFV, infantry fighting vehicles, Germans and US preferred armored halftracks, while the armor of those was so thin that a heavy machine gun could destroy one, with the infantry many times with it.
The Soviet mechanized infantry tended to ride on the hull of their tanks into battle, but the negative thing about that is that tanks tend to gather fire when spotted and the poor infantry men tended to be shot or blown to pieces, when battle started,no matter if the tank survived or not. So in the end the bicycle was pretty good poor mans solution since when the sounds of fire in front would start the Jaegers dropped their bicycles in near ditches and started fighting on foot, once the path was clear, they would pick up the damn things and move on. Of course the continuous cycling might have caused the jaegers to have sore arses, but maybe that was one of the key elements behind their ferocity.:laugh4:

[KrooK]

I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks?

I think reason is weakness of American and most of British tanks comparing to German ones. Sherman had no chance against Panther on open area. Panther had bigger range, heavier gun, better armour and was was smaller and faster.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That doesn't mean the soviets couldn't hit a thing, they even had the best snipers overall, I just think at some point it becomes hard for the defenders to stop the mighty steamroll.

Not necessarily. Unlike the Finns and Germans, the Soviets are known for recklessly inflating sniper kill totals. Simo Häyhä was the highest scoring sniper of the war.

Of course, I may be biased here - one of my great-uncles was a German sniper.

[PanzerJaeger]

2. I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks? Obviously it did happen, but apparently more accidental than wanted, I wonder why? Today it seems pretty normal and I'm not aware of any modern tank destroyers, dividing things into heavy armour with tiny guns and medium armoured vehicles with big guns seems a bit weird and it seems only logical to me to combine the two to get the best out of both worlds. I wonder what the reasons were not to do that.



Inter-war thought on the subject of armoured warfare proscribed two distinct roles for tanks - infantry support and AT. The armoured forces of the major combatants all reflected their adaptions of this basic premise. Later in the war, these roles became far more blended.

As I was saying, the AFVs we traditionally think of as "tanks" today, were most often designed for infantry support, to break the static situation encountered during WWI. For example, the Pz. III and Pz. IV were originally designed to play these roles in tandem.

It also explains the somewhat unfortunate British armoured situation throughout most of the war. Tanks such as the Churchill - an enormous beast that could go no more than 10km/h IIRC, are often mocked for their immobility and strange design. While it is true that they were completely ineffective versus German armour, they were never designed to go head to head against enemy armor. Their designers envisioned them spearheading an infantry advance against a fixed position, and in such a role, a speed faster than that of your average infantryman on foot was not seen as necessary.

To answer your original question, the Americans relied so heavily on tank destroyers, specifically the M10, M18 and M36, out of necessity. They found themselves severely outgunned in Normandy by a German armoured corps that had evolved significantly beyond their own capabilities. The open-topped nature of American TDs allowed for larger, more powerful guns to be utilized. However, there were significant disadvantages to having open-topped AFVs in combat, as I'm sure you can imagine. :laugh4:

As for the Germans, their tank destroyers followed two distinct development patterns.

The first were essentially static AT guns mounted on a chassis and used as a stand-off weapon. They were meant to engage enemy tanks from a distance, with forward support - often working with spotters.

PanzerJager I
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/marder03.jpg

Marder III
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/marder3-ardennes.jpg

Nashorn
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/xgerman_antitank11_nashorn_hornisse.jpg

..and the mighty Elefant
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Elephant-3.jpg


The second type were extentions of the StuG assault gun concept. Originally meant for infantry support, the Germans quickly realized that they were effective TDs as well. This led to a string of turretless tank destroyers based on a multitude of chassis. Removing the turret allowed for both increased frontal armor and easier angling of that armor - both very desireable attributes when engaging tanks. While having a very limited traverse limited their capacity in infantry-heavy engagements, with proper training it did not effect tank to tank engagement at any significant level.

StuG IV
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/StuGIV.jpg

Hetzer, based an effective Czech platform, cutest tank of the war..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/35285.jpg

Jagdpanzer IV
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/jagdpanzer4.jpg

Jagdpanther, best TD of the war..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/jagdpanther.jpg

and the enormous Jagdtiger..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/00145.jpg

[Husar]

Yep, those are the ones I read a bit about on wikipedia.

The bit about the american focus on AT destroyers I asked because some wiki article said the american leaders did not want tanks to face other tanks, they wanted to use tank destroyers and that's why it took them so long to field the Pershing. I took that as implying they simply made a "wrong" decision while the british fielded the sherman firefly to counter german tanks IIRC.

Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.

Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?

[Kagemusha]

Yep, those are the ones I read a bit about on wikipedia.

The bit about the american focus on AT destroyers I asked because some wiki article said the american leaders did not want tanks to face other tanks, they wanted to use tank destroyers and that's why it took them so long to field the Pershing. I took that as implying they simply made a "wrong" decision while the british fielded the sherman firefly to counter german tanks IIRC.

Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.

Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?

Sherman had gyro stabilizers, but it didnt made much of a difference. Even novadays, MBT´s tend to stop when they want to take a clear shot.stabilizing betters the chance of hitting while on move, but the chance never exceeds the chance of a hit when firing while being stationary.

[Sarmatian]

If I may move a bit from tank discussions, I wanted to ask some more knowledgable people here about manpower of Germany and SU. People often emphasize Soviet huge manpower, expecially compared to the Germans.

Now, at the time of WW2, Germany had around 50 million population. Soviet Union had 120 million. If we count all satelite states of Germany (Romania, Hungary etc...) that is probably 10-20 million more. Now, before the war even started Soviets lost enormous amonts of territory, most notably Ukraine and a good deal of European Russia, which was most heavily populated territory. Furthermore, German started sieging even more big population centers like Leningrad for example.

So at the onset of the winter 1941, Germans are in front of Moscow, Leningrad is besieged, much of territory is lost. How much population was "left" in the SU? If I'm not mistaken, most of new soldiers were conscripted from behind the Urals, which wasn't your most densely populated area of the SU. I somehow think that this entire "huge manpower advantage" was a bit exagerated, and that the reason Soviets had so much more men was that they adjusted their entire country to "total war" concept from the start, while Germans haven't until some time later. Any insights?

[PanzerJaeger]

Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.

Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?

Well, the Tiger was originally planned as a breakthrough tank - heavy armor, heavy gun, and slower speed. As the name implies, it was meant to lead major offensives, soaking up enemy fire and eliminating whatever it encountered - infantry, guns, or tanks. By the time it was employed, however, it was mainly used to thwart the growing multitude of T-34s.

The Panther was a direct result of the T-34, and embodied the modern day main battle tank more than any other tank. It was heavily armored, heavily gunned, and pretty fast. The Panther was comfortable taking on fixed positions and tanks equally. It most clearly demonstrates the distortion between infantry support and AT AFVs that was so stark earlier in the war.

The King Tiger continued in that vein, as German armoured planning moved to the light/medium/heavy distinctions, instead of the role oriented ones. It was very similar to the Panther, only with heavier armour and a bigger gun.

Only American tanks had stabilizers during WW2. They were so effective that the British removed them and the Americans usually did not maintain them. They were removed from American tanks after the war. IIRC, the British were taught to fire on the move early in the war, but it was shown to be completely ineffective and discarded. As Kagemusha said, its still not an optimal situation today, although the Abrams, for instance, has a very good system.

[KarlXII]

I think reason is weakness of American and most of British tanks comparing to German ones. Sherman had no chance against Panther on open area. Panther had bigger range, heavier gun, better armour and was was smaller and faster.

Actually, the Sherman was smaller and faster. Which is why they traveled in "platoons" to outflank them. And the Panther wasn't used to a great extent (or I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong)

Still waiting on your reply, btw :2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And the Panther wasn't used to a great extent (or I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong)


On the contrary, there were about six thousand manufactured. :book:

[KarlXII]

On the contrary, there were about six thousand manufactured. :book:

Really? I must be thinking of the Tiger.......

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Really? I must be thinking of the Tiger.......

About a thousand plus a few hundred of those, and five hundred-odd Tiger II tanks (pretty impressive for a year's production).

[rotorgun]

If I may move a bit from tank discussions, I wanted to ask some more knowledgable people here about manpower of Germany and SU. People often emphasize Soviet huge manpower, expecially compared to the Germans.

Now, at the time of WW2, Germany had around 50 million population. Soviet Union had 120 million. If we count all satelite states of Germany (Romania, Hungary etc...) that is probably 10-20 million more. Now, before the war even started Soviets lost enormous amonts of territory, most notably Ukraine and a good deal of European Russia, which was most heavily populated territory. Furthermore, German started sieging even more big population centers like Leningrad for example.

So at the onset of the winter 1941, Germans are in front of Moscow, Leningrad is besieged, much of territory is lost. How much population was "left" in the SU? If I'm not mistaken, most of new soldiers were conscripted from behind the Urals, which wasn't your most densely populated area of the SU. I somehow think that this entire "huge manpower advantage" was a bit exagerated, and that the reason Soviets had so much more men was that they adjusted their entire country to "total war" concept from the start, while Germans haven't until some time later. Any insights?

Here was an interesting link I came across last night as I was wondering about some of the casualty figures quoted in various posts. It contains some useful information to compare the relative strengths and losses estimated for many countries, even some of the more obscure ones.

http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm

Here is what is claimed for both Germany and the Soviet Union:


Germany - World War 2 Flag Germany
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Dictatorship
Religion: Christian
Population: 73,000,000 (1938)
Germans - 70,990,000
Poles - 1,000,000
Jews - 707,000
Russians - 200,000
Danes - 30,000
Gypsies - 28,000
Wends - 20,000
Frisians - 15,000
Lithuanians - 10,000 Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Axis Partner
1st Sep 1939 - 8th May 1945 Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Axis) - 3,350,000 Killed
Civilians - 3,043,000 Killed
Jews - 205,500 Killed
Gypsies - 20,000 Killed



USSR - World War 2 Flag Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Communist
Religion: Atheist
Population: 190,000,000 (1939)
Russians - 100,000,000
Ukrainians - 15,400,000
Uzbekis - 10,000,000
Kazakhs - 5,000,000
Byelorussians - 4,400,000
Azerbaijanis - 2,500,000
Tajiks - 2,500,000
Georgians - 2,100,000
Turkmen - 2,000,000
Jews - 1,907,000
Kyrgyz - 1,500,000
Armenians - 1,300,000
Kabardins - 700,000
Ossetians - 600,000
Chechens - 350,000
Volksdeutsch - 340,000
Tatars - 300,000
Bulgars - 200,000
Greeks - 125,000
Gagaus - 100,000
Others - 38,678,000 Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Neutral
1st Sep 1939 - 22nd Jun 1941
Allied Partner
22nd Jun 1941 - 8th May 1945
Neutral
8th May 1945 - 9th Aug 1945
Allied Partner
9th Aug 1945 - 2nd Sep 1945 Casualties (1941 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 13,300,000 Killed
Soldiers (Axis) - 408,000 Killed
Civilians - 6,500,000 Killed
Jews - 1,000,000 Killed

As one can see, the Soviets outnumbered Germany by almost 3-1 in manpower. What is interesting is the disparity in casualties, with the Germans dishing out a better than 4-1 outcome in military casualties. Of course many of Germany's losses were suffered in the west, but over 75% were likely from the east front.

PS: I think that this shows that there wasn't a "huge manpower advantage". It was also the vast areas involved in the Eastern campaign and the fact that Germany was fighting in the west, and in Southern Europe and Africa as well that made it impossible for the German Army to keep up with the attrition.

[Brenus]

Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy”: Especially when the Soviets were always complaining about the weakness of the Sherman. And the fact that the Sherman was design AFTER the T34, of course…

“It never quite reached the level of German military thinking”: We spoke about that before. The Soviet succeeded to change and improve in their tactics, the Germans never. From the Counter-offensive so costly at the beginning, ten the no-surrender battle, to the “shield and sword” tactic, follow by the huge offensives of 1944, the Soviets showed a constant and stunning adaptation during all the war. And you can add the Partisan Warfare in the back of the Germans. Exploiting the blitzkrieg (attacking the weak points) like in Stalingrad, huge attrition war like in Leningrad, trapping like in Kursk, mobility and aggression in Moscow (in 1942!!!!), the Red Army showed the Germans how to dance.

“Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk” Stalingrad, at the end and the decision not to withdraw –even it is not sure Paulus could have done it- sure. Kursk, no way. It is a German GENERALS defeat. Repeating tactic the Soviets knew and took counter measure to defend, bad planning, all they could do wrong they did. When Hitler decided that was enough, the Russian had still 2 Armies in reserve…

“Kharkov”: And? Defensive like Stalingrad…But unlike Stalingrad, no counter-offensive, withdraw to Berlin, with almost no stop. Out manoeuvred and out classed by innovative general as Koniev, Rokosovsky and Zukov, the German were first stopped, stabilised then push back… Where the Soviets adapted, the Germans were never able to find an alternative to the Blietzkrieg.

“The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manoeuvre in the East.” That is funny. Why this sheer weight didn’t eliminated the tactic and manoeuvre at the start of the Russian Campaign? The Russian had even more “weight”…:beam:

“It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war”: That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:

“Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat”: And many people are wrong. The Axis defeat is due to a lack of adequate material from a prolong war of attrition.
When the Germans failed to destroy the Red Army at the Russian borders, as planned by the Blitzkrieg, when they were obliged to go deeper and deeper in USSR, finally when they were not able to impose the rules any more (5 litres of petrol for one delivered at the front), when finally the lack of strategic bombers, real tanks (the Panther was an ANSWER to the T34) to confront a menace unforeseen, as general like Von Rundstedt predicted and feared, the Germans lost the war.

Like the French in 1940, the Germans lost the 1943-45 war because they were fighting the wrong war…

The Italians (but not only) were blame by the Germans for their own mistakes. Like if all the Allies units had the same qualities and equipment…

[PanzerJaeger]

We spoke about that before. The Soviet succeeded to change and improve in their tactics, the Germans never.

Really? Is that why modern mobile warfare is based primarily on the ideas and tactics developed throughout the war by the Germans?

This ignores the enormous advancements made in command structure, mobile tactics, elastic defense, etc by the Germans. The time from when the OKW made a strategic decision to the time it was carried out was far shorter than in any other military. The Kampfgruppe concept would be a good example.

Compare Manstein's offensives around Zhitomir 1943 against far superior forces to those of Guderian during the onset of Barbarrossa. It is impossible to say that the offensive tactics used had not changed. :dizzy2:

The Russians, on the other hand, were never able to coordinate as well as the Germans, and had far less cohesive operations. These issues meant that they very often were unable to bring their severe numerical advantages to bear. That is why they continually lost tactical battles against much smaller German forces, even later into the war.

Examine their attacks against Model's forces during 1944. With the numbers of men, tanks, artillery and airpower involved, what should have been an easy push turned into a nightmare. Or for an easier example, look at Tali-Ihantala, also in 1944. The Soviets seemingly learned nothing from their previous experiences with the Finns.

Russia's war was one of attrition and numbers. This was acknowledged at the highest levels. The Red Army was certainly a far more skilled military than it was in 1941, but I'm not sure how you can objectively claim the German military wasn't. :inquisitive:




Kursk, no way. It is a German GENERALS defeat. Repeating tactic the Soviets knew and took counter measure to defend, bad planning, all they could do wrong they did. When Hitler decided that was enough, the Russian had still 2 Armies in reserve…

Oh boy...

Kursk was completely the fault of Hitler, and was opposed by the German commanders. Manstein wanted to completely avoid the fortifications in the salient and attack elsewhere. It is rather difficult to win a battle when the time and place of your attack are forced upon you and well known by your enemy.

And, in fact, the plan concieved by the German command was the best possible for the limits imposed on them, and was far more successful than it should have been, considering the situation. How would you have done it?

I cannot understand how you could possibly blame the defeat at Kursk on anyone other than Hitler. He ordered his commanders, against their will, to assault a far larger force behind numerous layers of fortifications in which they had months to build.


And? Defensive like Stalingrad…But unlike Stalingrad, no counter-offensive, withdraw to Berlin, with almost no stop. Out manoeuvred and out classed by innovative general as Koniev, Rokosovsky and Zukov, the German were first stopped, stabilised then push back…

What? It is still studied today as textbook example of mobile defence. Zukov, Rokosovsky, and Koniev were all competent commanders, but demonstrated nothing particularly innovative on the battlefield. With such huge numbers of men and machines, tactical prowess was unnecessary.


That is funny. Why this sheer weight didn’t eliminated the tactic and manoeuvre at the start of the Russian Campaign?

It did. That is why the Germans lost. They destroyed enormous armies and captured great swathes of land, but exhaustion of manpower and machinery took hold. All the while, the USSR was replacing its losses at a rate far greater than Germany.

As I said, the Germans could pull off great tactical victories, but for little gain.




That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:

Why their own military assessments my good man.



The Axis defeat is due to a lack of adequate material from a prolong war of attrition.When the Germans failed to destroy the Red Army at the Russian borders, as planned by the Blitzkrieg, when they were obliged to go deeper and deeper in USSR, finally when they were not able to impose the rules any more (5 litres of petrol for one delivered at the front), when finally the lack of strategic bombers, real tanks (the Panther was an ANSWER to the T34) to confront a menace unforeseen, as general like Von Rundstedt predicted and feared, the Germans lost the war.

I completely agree. Weren't you just earlier claiming Soviet military superiority?



Like the French in 1940, the Germans lost the 1943-45 war because they were fighting the wrong war…


I'm not sure I understand the comparison. The French lost the war because they had poorly trained soldiers led by unskilled leaders and a population with little motivation to fight for their own freedom. The Germans lost due to being completely outnumbered on all fronts. :shrug:

[rotorgun]

It is true that the Red Army improved greatly after the severe defeats of June 1941 thru the early part of 1942. That they survived to remain an Army was almost unbelieveable. No other nation on earth could have absorbed such a defeat with the exception of maybe China. That the Russians came back in 1943 with much improved weapons, tactics, and generalship is proof of their ability to adapt. To imply that they were superior to the German Army as a whole is somewhat eroneous however.

Even when one considers the disaster at Stalingrad, consider the rescources it required to defeat the 6th Army; something like 5 Tank Armies where required to envelop them. It was only Hitler's determination to hold the city that prevented them from breaking out-and they could have done so if they had immediately taken action before the opportunity for manuever was lost.
.....but I digress.

On anything like equal terms, the average German Panzer or Infantry Division could dish up their Russsian equivlant on any day of the week. Even in 1945, when the Soviets had JS IIs and T34/85s by the score, a German Panzer Battalion could take on any three similar sized Regiments (and a Russian "regiment" was in actuallity only battalion sized) before breakfast, reposition, and take on another such attack in the afternoon. I read, in Kenneth Macksey's Panzer Division: the Mailed Fist, of one German Tiger Platoon destroying around 40 Russian heavy tanks in less than an hour. Of course, when you have 100 more where that came from.....well, you see the picture.

Yes the Germans made some incredible strategic blunders, and true they were capable of making tactical errors as any army is. It must be said that for a Nation of 73,000,000, taking on the allies with a combined population of 300,000,000 plus, with an army that was never larger than 12 million, they certainly gave the allies a good dance at the party.

[cegorach]

On anything like equal terms, the average German Panzer or Infantry Division could dish up their Russsian equivlant on any day of the week. Even in 1945, when the Soviets had JS IIs and T34/85s by the score, a German Panzer Battalion could take on any three similar sized Regiments (and a Russian "regiment" was in actuallity only battalion sized) before breakfast, reposition, and take on another such attack in the afternoon. I read, in Kenneth Macksey's Panzer Division: the Mailed Fist, of one German Tiger Platoon destroying around 40 Russian heavy tanks in less than an hour. Of course, when you have 100 more where that came from.....well, you see the picture.


Too simplified.

Much of the superior score comes from the fact they were usually on defence.

Personally I could find half a dozen examples where German side failed terribly and suffered higher losses.

One of more troubling failures was the German inability to eliminate Soviet bridgeheads - almost every time before the Nazi side bagun their all too eagerly expected attack to eliminate one of those the Soviets managed to prepare themselves and the Germans were achieving another one grand, spectacular nothing.

I don't really know why was that, but more than once mechanical failures eliminated up to 50 % of the forces prepared for such an attack before it even started.

Certainly to the end of the war they were able to cut off and destroy Soviet units thanks to much better coordination (at least three tank armies in 1945 alone), but nothing more than a tactical victory was achieved this way.
Soviets replaced their losses, sent reserves and Germans had hardly any time to evacuate numerous tanks damaged during the victorious fighting - that more than once turned such a success into a defeat - losses couldn't be replaced, valuable tanks couldn't be repaired because it was the Soviet army which ended as a master of the battlefield in the end.



In a way and to some degree it was like the battles between French tank units and German forces in 1940. French divisions usually were able to cause much larger losses than they suffered, but because they were defeated in the end (partly thanks to Luftwaffe) they were losing equipment they couldn't evacuate and repair while the Germans could repair enough of their armoured vehicles to continue without much delay.

IN 1944 we have a nice reversal - individual superiority in tactical scale didn't matter in the end because the Allies and the Soviets could replace their losses quickly, use superior airforce and by exhausting German resources were winning on grander scale cutting off valuable units which couldn't be prevented because the German side ran out of reserves already.


It is so amazingly similar with Luftwaffe in the eastern front.

Sure it had impressive kill rate, sure its pilots were shoting down and destroying dozens of targets in the air and on the ground, but it didn't matter because as early as mid 1943 Soviet airforce could carry on their ground support missions without much problems.
Luftwaffe destroyed more, but it was the Soviet force which did what it was supposed to do and the Germans couldn't find a way to actually stop that from happening.
Soviets simply wrote off some more pilots and planes as the price for successful air missions - all those Hartmanns could note down another victory, but it was the Soviet airforce which was doing what it was supposed to do, not them.

Obviously it didn't happen against the Allies - here the Luftwaffe was just simply, ordinarily losing with increasingly higher and higher numbers of fighters and pilots eliminated from further combat.

[PanzerJaeger]

Too simplified.

Much of the superior score comes from the fact they were usually on defence.



I pretty much agree with everything you said about attrition. However, I would argue this point.

The first years consisted of almost continual offensive activity, with the rush to Moscow in '41 and the Kaukus offensive in '42. Offensives were also conducted in '43, Kursk being the biggest but certainly not the only large one. Even in the last years, Germany continually launched offensives in the East up to Spring Awakening in 1945.

Also, a main tenet of German defensive warfare was the rapid counterattack, both in an operational and tactical sense.

[KrooK]

Rotorgun - small (but important) correction to your data.
USSR was not neutral until 22nd June of 1941. This country was into close alliance with Germany and should be rather called Axis IMO.

I agree with Jager and Cegorach. Russian army was much bigger but not better. Of course into 1944 it wasn't same army like into 1945 but it cannot be compared to any western european army. Their commanders were not as bad as into 1941, but it doesn't mean good. Look at battle of Seelow Hills and battle of Berlin. Or on Russian way to reconeissance...
On the other hand we can't claim German army undefeated and proove that they lost only due to being outnumbered. Germans did many mistakes too and blaiming only Hitler is unfair. Their soldiers were worse than Russians. I don't mean training and experience but typical skills used to survive. For example survive Russian winter....

[rotorgun]

I compliment all on the excellent points brought up. Indeed the reasons for the German defeat were more complex than merely a question of numbers. That they made more mistakes in the latter part of the war was due in a large part to the very attrition that they suffered. Replacements being of a lower quality due to decreased training time, and less experience before being sent into battle. The allies experience level was increasing exponentially as a result.

Cegorach, certainly my example was rather simplified. I shall have to take time to look for more examples to support my claim, but in a majority of tactical situations, the German army performed better than the average Soviet unit of the same size. I would say that this was until after their defeats in the Ardennes and in the East by the Steam Roller winter offensive.
Still, your points are all valid to be sure and I shant take issue with them in the whole.

I would like to address a couple of areas you discussed. First there is this statement:


I don't really know why was that, but more than once mechanical failures eliminated up to 50 % of the forces prepared for such an attack before it even started.

I saw an intersting program recently where a group recovered a German PZV Panther from a Polish River and restored it. It was one that was lost during the fighting retreat of the Germans during the dreadful Russian winter push.
They discovered that it likely was likely initially disabled as it tried to cross the river due to a transmission failure. It seems that the gears in the drive section of the transmission failed because the bolts that held them together to the drive axles sheared. The reason-sabotage . The slave laborers that were assembling these vehicles were sabotaging these bolts, as well as the gear teeth as well on many of the German tanks before they left the assembly line. This accounts for some of the many breakdowns experienced by the Germans.

This is also an good point as well:


Soviets replaced their losses, sent reserves and Germans had hardly any time to evacuate numerous tanks damaged during the victorious fighting - that more than once turned such a success into a defeat - losses couldn't be replaced, valuable tanks couldn't be repaired because it was the Soviet army which ended as a master of the battlefield in the end.

Now the shoe was on the other foot for the Germans. This is what they had been able to do to their enemies previously. It was just one more way in which the allies were able to put another nail in the coffin of the German Army.

I would still say that the Germans must be considered as the best. Had they made a few less strategic blunders, such as invading the Soviet Union until after Great Britain had been nuetralized, perhaps they may have won (Thank goodness that they didn't) Declaring war on the United States prematurley was another mistake IMO.

[Kagemusha]

Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:

[Flavius Clemens]

“It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war”: That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:


I don't remember the source, but years ago I read something that suggested this was why the USSR chose to attack Japan at the end of the war rather than increasing their power in the west by invading Turkey. I'm sure this is an idea you guys can pull to pieces...

[PanzerJaeger]

Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:

Heres my opinion, not that you asked for it. :beam:

The German military as a whole had highly advanced leadership, doctrines, training, organization, and any other measure you want to use.

To me, what really makes them the best, though, was their ability to coordinate operations. WW2 was a learning exercise in combined arms, and the Germans excelled in that area.

All of the measures mentioned above - leadership, doctrine, training, and organization - contributed to their ability to form complex plans, carry them out efficiently, and defeat far larger forces.

Their ability, especially later in the war, to quickly pull together highly trained soldiers from whatever forces were available, transcend normal chains of command, effectively plan complex operations, and carry them out with very few organizational issues, demonstrates a level of military skill simply not duplicated in the major operations of other combatants.

The Finns showed a certain degree of proficiency in this kind of warfare as well, but their strategic and material situations limited it to some extent, and the sheer scope and complexity of the German operations eclipsed those of the Finns many times over. (When you only have a few AFVs, its hard to gauge how well you would perform in mobile armoured warfare.)

Best is, of course, subjective. So thats just my opinion.

An equally interesting match up would be "Worst Military of WW2" between the major combatants. :yes:

[Sarmatian]

Here was an interesting link I came across last night as I was wondering about some of the casualty figures quoted in various posts. It contains some useful information to compare the relative strengths and losses estimated for many countries, even some of the more obscure ones.

http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm

Here is what is claimed for both Germany and the Soviet Union:






As one can see, the Soviets outnumbered Germany by almost 3-1 in manpower. What is interesting is the disparity in casualties, with the Germans dishing out a better than 4-1 outcome in military casualties. Of course many of Germany's losses were suffered in the west, but over 75% were likely from the east front.

PS: I think that this shows that there wasn't a "huge manpower advantage". It was also the vast areas involved in the Eastern campaign and the fact that Germany was fighting in the west, and in Southern Europe and Africa as well that made it impossible for the German Army to keep up with the attrition.

Well, it's not really 3-1. I mean it is on paper but not in practice. If we count only Hungary and Romania together that's 25 million more for the Germans. Before the real fighting even started SU lost Ukraine - that's 15-20 million less (possibly even more, IIRC a good portion of Russians lived in Ukraine). How much of the population was lost in the European Russia that was conquered before Soviets even knew what hit them?

I think in reality the difference in manpower was much smaller than 3:1, in winter 1941 I mean. At that time German pretty much had everything going for them. They practicaly reached Moscow, they cut off large population centers from the rest of SU and if I remember correctly, Germans also had higher production of coal, oil and steel than SU until 1943. It wasn't really David vs Goliath as it is often portrated to be.

[Kagemusha]

Heres my opinion, not that you asked for it. :beam:

The German military as a whole had highly advanced leadership, doctrines, training, organization, and any other measure you want to use.

To me, what really makes them the best, though, was their ability to coordinate operations. WW2 was a learning exercise in combined arms, and the Germans excelled in that area.

All of the measures mentioned above - leadership, doctrine, training, and organization - contributed to their ability to form complex plans, carry them out efficiently, and defeat far larger forces.

Their ability, especially later in the war, to quickly pull together highly trained soldiers from whatever forces were available, transcend normal chains of command, effectively plan complex operations, and carry them out with very few organizational issues, demonstrates a level of military skill simply not duplicated in the major operations of other combatants.

The Finns showed a certain degree of proficiency in this kind of warfare as well, but their strategic and material situations limited it to some extent, and the sheer scope and complexity of the German operations eclipsed those of the Finns many times over.

Best is, of course, subjective. So thats just my opinion.

An equally interesting match up would be "Worst Military of WW2" between the major combatants. :yes:

I know this could be talked to death, but because in my philosophy there hardly cant be one answer to the question in hand, i would just like to once again raise the summer 1944 up.
When you say that tactically and strategically, Finnish had some proficiency, but it could not match the germans, id like to point it to you that Finnish headquarters was able to deploy half of its army into area which consisted about 1/ 8th of the whole front it defended. In a situation where enemy had almost complete control of skies, Finnish army was engaged on all sectors, lacked motorization and supplies notoriously. In these conditions the poor Finnish military was able to concentrate its forces to a sector, meaning Karelian Isthmus and in battle ready condition, while the fighting units in Isthmus and Eastern Karelia, were fighting a delaying action at the time against enemy which had:

450 000 men
10 500 guns
800 tanks and assault guns
1600 planes

with force of:

75 000 men
289 guns
125 tanks and assault guns
248 planes (the whole Finnish airforce)

The initial forces here to put it another way:

1:6 ratio for Soviets in personnel
1:37 ratio for soviets in guns
1:6 ratio for Soviets in tanks and assault guns
1:6 ratio for soviets in planes

The initial Finnish forces were pushed back to VKT- line, from the main line, between 9.6.1944 when the fourth strategic offensive started and 20.6.1944, for less then 100 kilometers, fighting a tenacious delaying action, without even a single battalion sized Finnish formation surrendering to the enemy. The only major plunder being the loss of city of Viipuri, when Finnish forces panicked and routed from the city afraid of being enveloped by the red army. The loss of city was not much strategically, but emotionally it was huge blow to Finnish.

mappy:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Continuation-War-defensive-lines.png

Now when the Finnish army was deployed into VKT- line, it had been reinforced so that there was about 40% of all Finnish soldiers and guns and all their tanks deployed in the Isthmus, plus German troops: Detachment Kuhlmey: 70 german planes, 303rd assault gun brigade( half strength, 33 Stug III assault guns) and 122nd infantry division (10600 men). Together In total Figuring:

268 000 men
1930 guns
143 tanks
318 planes

agaist the forementioned enemy, which had also replaced its casualties after reaching VKT-Line by sending 6 new divisions and reinforcements:

450 000 men
10 500 guns
800 tanks and assault guns
1600 planes

so now the odds were:

1:2 in men for Soviets
1: 6 in guns for the Soviets
1:6 in tanks and assault guns to soviets
1:5 in planes for the soviets

With these forces started series of Finnish decisive victories, culminating in the battles of Tali- Ihantala, which is largest battle ever fought in Scandinavia and finally Battle of Ilomantsi, where first time since 1941 two Soviet divisions reached the Finno Soviet border of 1940 and were last ones to do so also during the war, before the Moscow armistice, but shortly after that were surrounded and decimated by the Finnish task force Raappana. The last 8 major battles of continuation war ended in Finnish decisive victories, thus giving Finnish army defensive victory over the attacking Red Army, which was halted on all sectors.
So Finnish leadership was able to concentrate 193 000 men and 1641 guns to the Isthmus from other sectors inside 11 days, while enemy had complete air superiority and the means for transportation for to best say, lacking. Also the enemy was active all along the front so the forces had to be taken by thinning deployments heavily in other sectors.

I would really like for you to give me one example of an Operation where a) Germans faced such odds,b) were able to move such percent of their forces across the field of Operations under battle conditions to another sector, c) Were victorious.~;)

Now i can accept that Finnish army lacked resources, weapons and even brute force compared to major armies, because of the size of the country and population.
But when it comes to the art of tactics,skill and strategy, or efficiency with the resources at hand, i cant accept your notion of Germany being superior, because if we want to go deeper into this we have the whole Northern front during Operation Barbarossa to talk about where Finnish and German armies were fighting alongside and comparisons of how normal Finnish infantry divisions performed compared to German Gebirgsjäger and SS formations can be easily made.:smash:

[Husar]

Well, it's not really 3-1. I mean it is on paper but not in practice. If we count only Hungary and Romania together that's 25 million more for the Germans. Before the real fighting even started SU lost Ukraine - that's 15-20 million less (possibly even more, IIRC a good portion of Russians lived in Ukraine). How much of the population was lost in the European Russia that was conquered before Soviets even knew what hit them?

I think in reality the difference in manpower was much smaller than 3:1, in winter 1941 I mean. At that time German pretty much had everything going for them. They practicaly reached Moscow, they cut off large population centers from the rest of SU and if I remember correctly, Germans also had higher production of coal, oil and steel than SU until 1943. It wasn't really David vs Goliath as it is often portrated to be.
Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?

[Sarmatian]

Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?

I was talking about situation in winter 1941. Later another front in Italy was formed which tied up some German troops. Some German troops were also lost in Africa. But to be more precise, I was asking more than saying. I'm not an expert on ww2, at least not to an extent some guys here are, like Cegorach or PanzerJaeger.

But it seems to me that in the beggining of the war, Soviets didn't have that that much going for them... Just thought it would be interesting to know just how much population was in the SU, in the part that wasn't occupied by Germany, when Soviets started their counteroffensive. I'm guessing really, since there is no way to know how much population lived in that part of SU that Germany conquered at the beggining. I'm guessing at that time probably no more than 2:1. As the war went on and Germans were losing more and more soldiers in the eastern front but also in other theaters and Soviets were liberating more and more territory it's not so difficult to come to 20:1 Soviet advantage near the end of the war...

[rotorgun]

Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:

OK.....if you must lock me down:dancinglock: then I will define best as most capable of performing combined arms warfare in WW2. :charge: :turtle: :duel:
I will admit to you proud Finns, that after looking at all of the many excellent sources presented in your argument, I shall agree that Finland may indeed have had the best army in terms of consistent performance. Man for man the Finnish Army of WW2 was the toughest set of hombres in the land. :hmg: :smg:

Have you ever played Advanced Squad Leader? (ASL) The Finnish squads are represented in the game as Ubertruppen who don't even need leaders to rally, have very good morale, and a good mixture of support weapons (many of the German) to equip them. They get bonuses for winter warfare, and most can use skis. Many of the scenarios are from the war with the Russians, and in most they are victorious if played by a competent player. They are a joy to play, and a challenge to play against. They just keep coming back at you relentlessly. If ASL has depicted them right, I would dread to face soldiers such as these.

Of course this is a matter of opinion, and I still feel that for overall innovation and technique, the German Army was the best. I can at least admit that I might be wrong however, and am glad to concede to one who argues so thoughtfully.

[Kagemusha]

OK.....if you must lock me down:dancinglock: then I will define best as most capable of performing combined arms warfare in WW2. :charge: :turtle: :duel:
I will admit to you proud Finns, that after looking at all of the many excellent sources presented in your argument, I shall agree that Finland may indeed have had the best army in terms of consistent performance. Man for man the Finnish Army of WW2 was the toughest set of hombres in the land. :hmg: :smg:

Have you ever played Advanced Squad Leader? (ASL) The Finnish squads are represented in the game as Ubertruppen who don't even need leaders to rally, have very good morale, and a good mixture of support weapons (many of the German) to equip them. They get bonuses for winter warfare, and most can use skis. Many of the scenarios are from the war with the Russians, and in most they are victorious if played by a competent player. They are a joy to play, and a challenge to play against. They just keep coming back at you relentlessly. If ASL has depicted them right, I would dread to face soldiers such as these.

Of course this is a matter of opinion, and I still feel that for overall innovation and technique, the German Army was the best. I can at least admit that I might be wrong however, and am glad to concede to one who argues so thoughtfully.

Its a complex issue what makes men hard to win. I doubt that it is inherit to any set of peoples. When it comes to Finnish army of WWII, i would point two main reasons. First, the doctrine. When the overall command encourages soldiers to be creative from the single trooper level and show in their strategic decisions that they care about the soldiers they are commanding by not getting them killed in vain, because of heroism or stubborn principles which have no room in mobile warfare. There is enough heroism in dying for your country, there is no need to make heroes more then its absolutely necessary.
To point into this, my instructor when i was at petty officer school, put it like this:

"Motti, starts from a single individual soldier, if the enemy who you are facing cant predict your next move, you have the advantage, then its up to you how you use it. Out manouvering many men starts from out manouvering one man."

The second and more important reason in my mind was the early success in defensive victories. When a individual or group, no matter if its a squad, platoon, Battalion or a division, is successful, they start to think they are good in what they do and when a group thinks its good (in case its not hybris, but they have a reason to think so), suddenly it starts outperforming itself and indeed becomes better. When you combine, rugged training, with open atmosphere of inspirational thinking, with high self esteem and will to fight, such group is hard to beat, not impossible, but hard.
Now if Soviets could have been able to overrun Finnish like they planned in the start of Winter War, the morale would have probably collapsed and so would have Finland. There are many examples in history, when men from a certain countries have outperformed themselves, while in another war and time, have shown little spirit to fight. During WWII Finnish had the will and the determination to fight, but it doesnt change the fact that it could have been just as well otherwise.

But what i know for fact is that the "teräsmyrsky", steel storm like Finns call the fourth strategic offensive left a mark to every man who was there. As a little story i can mention my own grandfather, who fought both in Winter War and Continuation War. Before the war he liked to hunt, but when he came back from Continuation War he dismissed his hunting rifle and since then there wasnt any firearms in his farm. I guess he had shot enough for one life time. Also when i was a child i can still remember when some nights, in middle of the night suddenly he yelled in his dreams and that sounded like a yell of a wounded animal, not like a man yelling. I guess from that experience i think nothing creates pacifist like war, its just a shame that in this world we are, one can only hope for a peace, but have to prepare for war.

And about ASL, nope i havent played it. As Finland has still a citizen army,my experiences of Finnish infantry come from my military service in Karelian Jaeger Brigade as Sergeant of mechanized Jaeger infantry. Novadays im staff Sergeant in reserve, one more re-rehearsal and promotion to Warrant officer in reserve might take place with some luck.~;)

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Now .. a little bit off topic but I id the test what I found on the first page and ...


In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
100%
Poland
94%
Finland
75%
United States
69%
Italy
69%
Japan
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
63%
Germany
50%
Soviet Union
44%

US and Japan are both 69%!!
Oh well .. it's good to be suicidal with good weapons .. right??

:focus:

[rotorgun]

To point into this, my instructor when i was at petty officer school, put it like this:
"Motti, starts from a single individual soldier, if the enemy who you are facing cant predict your next move, you have the advantage, then its up to you how you use it. Out manouvering many men starts from out manouvering one man."

A very astute observation. I shall pass this on to my fellow NCOs and soldiers.


The second and more important reason in my mind was the early success in defensive victories. When a individual or group, no matter if its a squad, platoon, Battalion or a division, is successful, they start to think they are good in what they do and when a group thinks its good (in case its not hybris, but they have a reason to think so), suddenly it starts outperforming itself and indeed becomes better. When you combine, rugged training, with open atmosphere of inspirational thinking, with high self esteem and will to fight, such group is hard to beat, not impossible, but hard.

This reminds me of the mindset of some of our more famous units, such as the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions. They have a sort of never quit attitude that makes them difficult to defeat.


But what i know for fact is that the "teräsmyrsky", steel storm like Finns call the fourth strategic offensive left a mark to every man who was there. As a little story i can mention my own grandfather, who fought both in Winter War and Continuation War. Before the war he liked to hunt, but when he came back from Continuation War he dismissed his hunting rifle and since then there wasnt any firearms in his farm. I guess he had shot enough for one life time. Also when i was a child i can still remember when some nights, in middle of the night suddenly he yelled in his dreams and that sounded like a yell of a wounded animal, not like a man yelling. I guess from that experience i think nothing creates pacifist like war, its just a shame that in this world we are, one can only hope for a peace, but have to prepare for war.


Retired Major Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, says he prayed after his first day in Normandy that if God would let him survive the war, he would "find a little piece of land someday and live out his days as a man of peace". This is exactly what he did, and a more gentle soul one rarely meets.
He and your Grandfather would have something in common.


And about ASL, nope i havent played it. As Finland has still a citizen army,my experiences of Finnish infantry come from my military service in Karelian Jaeger Brigade as Sergeant of mechanized Jaeger infantry. Novadays im staff Sergeant in reserve, one more re-rehearsal and promotion to Warrant officer in reserve might take place with some luck.~;)

Congratulations! I too started in the Infantry many (too many) years ago. Now I am a Staff Sergeant as well in a National Guard Aviation Squadron. I hope to retire in 6 years. One or two more deployments should see me to the day.

[Kagemusha]

Retired Major Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, says he prayed after his first day in Normandy that if God would let him survive the war, he would "find a little piece of land someday and live out his days as a man of peace". This is exactly what he did, and a more gentle soul one rarely meets.
He and your Grandfather would have something in common.



Congratulations! I too started in the Infantry many (too many) years ago. Now I am a Staff Sergeant as well in a National Guard Aviation Squadron. I hope to retire in 6 years. One or two more deployments should see me to the day.

Thank you for your kind words.:bow: My hat is off to you good sir, its one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. (Hopefully i never have to walk the walk, because in that case the situation in world has changed drastically.)I have nothing but appreciation about the ones like you, who are ready to put their lives on the line, protecting their countries. I hope that you and your men will stay safe and one day when the time comes you can have your earned retirement and can pursuit other things in life.:yes:

[rotorgun]

Thank you for your kind words.:bow: My hat is off to you good sir, its one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. (Hopefully i never have to walk the walk, because in that case the situation in world has changed drastically.)I have nothing but appreciation about the ones like you, who are ready to put their lives on the line, protecting their countries. I hope that you and your men will stay safe and one day when the time comes you can have your earned retirement and can pursuit other things in life.:yes:

That is most kindly said and gratefully received Sir! Thank you very much indeed. It's an honor to me to be able to serve my country. I wish it were for a better cause sometimes, but that can't always be helped. We fight for much more tangible things-the respect and love of our fellow soldiers. I wouldn't miss that for the world. :knight: We'll try to keep our heads down. With any luck, this will be our last deployment.

PS: I really enjoy our discussions.

[PanzerJaeger]

I would really like for you to give me one example of an Operation where a) Germans faced such odds,b) were able to move such percent of their forces across the field of Operations under battle conditions to another sector, c) Were victorious.~;)

Well, first we must nail down exactly what kind of victory the Finns won. I would call it a tactical defensive victory, as the Finns defeated the Soviets by superior fighting skills (tactical), but only largley maintained pre-battle positions (defensive).

The Eastern Front is replete with German defensive tactical victories against much larger forces.

To begin, I'll throw out Operation Mars in 1942 - which gets way too little attention by historians. A Soviet offensive involving more men and armour than the much more famous Operation Uranus, and Zhukov's largest defeat.

Or, if you'd like a curveball that really demonstrates German coordination, even on a cross-national basis, how about Narva and Tannenberg in 1944?

I feel those examples meet your conditions as they were defensive victories against enormous numerical superiority where large movements of men and machinery were required to achieve victory.


But when it comes to the art of tactics,skill and strategy, or efficiency with the resources at hand, i cant accept your notion of Germany being superior, because if we want to go deeper into this we have the whole Northern front during Operation Barbarossa to talk about where Finnish and German armies were fighting alongside and comparisons of how normal Finnish infantry divisions performed compared to German Gebirgsjäger and SS formations can be easily made.:smash:

I would feel confident in comparing the combat performance of the original SS units against that of the best Finnish ones.

But that wasn't my point. The Finns simply did not engage in the type of large scale mechanized combat that required a higher degree of training, tactics, coordination and leadership - so I cannot say they were the best.

It is almost hard to compare Germany and Finland. Or the UK and Greece. Or the United States and Norway. The difference in the scale of operations is just too large.

I will say that the average Finnish soldier was the equal to his German all... co-fighter. (~;) ) That is a lot more that can be said for Germany's other allies.

[Veho Nex]

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Finland
Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.
Japan
94%
Finland
94%
Italy
81%
Poland
81%
British and the Commonwealth
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
63%
United States
50%
Germany
44%
Soviet Union
13%

[LittleGrizzly]

I was 96% on poland and finland, the tiebreaker won it for poland, i like a heroic defense against the odds (in desperation)

[Oleander Ardens]

Personally I think that it is almost impossible to compare the performances of various armies given the vast inherent differences between them.

An example a statement from one of the first posts: Finnish conscripts were able to drive out German forces out of northern Finland even while they had to demobilize their army. So when even finnish conscripts were able to defeat the famous German army it must be the best of world, or?

And here come the problems in a whole basket. First what were the strategic intentions of both sides and the ressources on which they could draw? If you give a closer look on the specific situation on this front it is clear that a fighting retreat combined with delaying actions and scorched earth tactics was the strategic intention since there was the real possibility of the encirclement of the whole German arctic front. A possibility which almost became reality with a brilliant Soviet offensive, the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation which started roughly a month after the first skirmishes between German and Finnish troops.

So one can actually say that the German army was able to preserve much of its fighting strengh retreating from a unholdable position and thus achieving its strategic intent. Equally the Finnish army was able to achieve their own objective by forcing the Germans slowly out of Lapland and avoiding a Soviet invasion. Ironically only the Soviet army achieved not the stated aim of their operation: to wipe out the whole 20th Mountain army. That they would push it into Norway was given in october 1944.

So how do you want to assess now the strengh of "the German Army" which consisted mostly of mountain infantry with no tank support and little artillery and wanted to retreat and used just a fraction of their strengh against the Finns because a mighty soviet offensive aimed at destroying them was under way and the "Finnish Army" which were mostly new conscripts, often underaged with light weaponry who wanted to drive the Germans out to avoid a Soviet invasion?

Actually there are some interesting papers concerning both the specific Petsamo-Kirkenes operation and German winter warfare and ski manuals which cover the adaption of German tactics to the specific challenges of winter and the various landscapes. I would highly recommend a read. Especially the ski manual might interest you, as it builds on German experience in mountain warfare, finnish expertise of the Winter War and insights gained in the hard winter battles against the Soviet. Especially in the Tundra there was beside the static warfare near the coast a very fluid winter warfare on skis and snowshoes full of skirmishes and raids.