Results 1 to 30 of 130

Thread: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by rotorgun
    If anyone should doubt the contribution of the Poles during 1939, a period when their allies did nothing to aid them in their heroic defense, here is a reminder:
    The Poles weren't able to defend their country nearly as well as Finland, and if your numbers are correct, the Poles had better odds in terms of manpower.

    Polish Campaign:

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

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

    Winter War:

    Finnish Forces
    250,000 soldiers
    30 tanks
    130 aircraft

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

    Compare the odds.

    EDIT: Here they are, just for you.

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

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


    While we all can agree that Poland's Army could never have been classified as "the best", an argument could be made that they might have earned the title of "most heroic" indeed.
    If that label can even be assigned (which I do not believe it can - how do you classify "most heroic" anyways? However you do it, I'm willing to bet it's excluding Germans), it goes completely, 100% to the Finns, in my opinion.
    Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 05-18-2008 at 04:10.

  2. #2
    German Enthusiast Member Alexanderofmacedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Where Columbus condemned the natives
    Posts
    3,124

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

    Evil_Maniac From Mars,

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

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

    Also, even when Polish units were well equiped and trained by British forces and sent into battle in 1943 and late war years, they were usually decimated by German formations. And these are late war formations mind you.
    Last edited by Alexanderofmacedon; 05-18-2008 at 05:12.


  3. #3
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

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

    Polish Campaign:

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

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

    Winter War:

    Finnish Forces
    250,000 soldiers
    30 tanks
    130 aircraft

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

    Compare the odds:

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

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

    If that label can even be assigned (which I do not believe it can - how do you classify "most heroic" anyways? However you do it, I'm willing to bet it's excluding Germans), it goes completely, 100% to the Finns, in my opinion.
    Sorry for not getting back sooner on this, and I didn't mean to offend or start a row. I thank you for the interesting comparison of odds. On paper it appears as if the Polish Army should have given a better account of themselves, but numbers alone aren't always the answer. As others have pointed out, the massive numerical advantages of the Red armies were in many ways negated by the severe weather encountered. Also, their attack doctrine was no where near as developed as were the Blitzkrieg operations of the Germans. Still I totally agree that Finland put up a spirited and heroic defense. The initiative of all ranks within the Finnish Army allowed them to take advantage of the blundering, and overconfident Soviet attack. This enabled the Finns to negotiate from a position of strength as the Russians wished to avoid further casualties even though they won. My hat is off to Finland.

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

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

    PS: Neither do I claim the Polish army as the best either. I have yet to stake a claim in this friendly (I hope) discussion.
    Last edited by rotorgun; 05-19-2008 at 04:49.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  4. #4
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by rotorgun
    Sorry for not getting back sooner on this, and I didn't mean to offend or start a row. I thank you for the interesting comparison of odds. On paper it appears as if the Polish Army should have given a better account of themselves, but numbers alone aren't always the answer.
    Precisely why I believe the Finns had the better army. Remember, part of being a good army is utilizing the terrain you're given.

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


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

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

    The final conclusion I draw is that there was no lack of courage in either army. I concede that Finland's soldiery where, and still are among the best in the world. I just don't feel that they were the best.
    Indeed, both armies had men with courage in abundance. On the other hand, so did almost every other army in the war - probably the Japanese more than anyone, with almost (and much of the time more than almost) suicidal courage.

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

    I have yet to stake a claim in this friendly (I hope) discussion.
    Very much friendly, I did not mean to come across otherwise. My humble apologies if that is the case.

  5. #5

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
    The armoured fight with cavalry has been debunked as at least a partial myth, I'm fairly certain. Perhaps Panzer has a source immediately available?
    Mokra was the battle, and the Poles didn't come out too badly. There was never a charge at tanks with cavalry though, more of an accidental meeting.

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

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

  6. #6
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

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

    See ya'll later.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO