For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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 .

Sorry - some Tankietka's had cannons - but only few.
http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polski...k/_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.

Quote:

---

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 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%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

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.

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 :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

BTW did Russians give back Porkkala Penisula?

---

Yes, they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :).

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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...

Ohhh I amm glad seeing the new topic.

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


@Tribesman

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It is important to note that the Poles were decisively beaten 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.

Quote:

---

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.
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/b...wh17ix2mb1.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.

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.

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%

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:

Quote:

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

Quote:

---

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 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).

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/b...ch/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/b...ch/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/b...ch/tksdrys.gif

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b...orach/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.

OK just a couple of things there Cegroach .
Them tankettes

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

@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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b.../IMG_1673a.jpg

@

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

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:

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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:

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.