For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[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? As Mr. Spock might say....Fascinating

[KarlXII]

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

Must be the viking in me.

[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 :)

[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.

[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/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.

[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 :).

[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%

[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…

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

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.

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!!!!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

[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, 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, 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_...o_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.

[Brenus]

“Yep Blitzkrieg into Italy”:
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…
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?

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…
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?

[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.

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 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.

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.

[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 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.
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



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...
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.

[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/FreeFil...%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.