For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

First post in a while.

Germany
100%

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

Polish Campaign:

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

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

Winter War:

Finnish Forces
250,000 soldiers
30 tanks
130 aircraft

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

Compare the odds.

EDIT: Here they are, just for you.

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

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

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

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

[KarlXII]

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

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

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Evil_Maniac From Mars,

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Great sources. Im still reading.

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.

[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?

[KrooK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

[KarlXII]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only problem was that Finland survived. Poland didn't.

[KrooK]

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

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


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

[KarlXII]

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

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

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

Forgive me, I am not worthy.

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

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

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

When the hell did I do that?

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

Ah, ok.

Finland was better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KrooK]

Fish
1) Poland won last great war into 1921 :) It will be about - 100 years later than Sweden.
2) Sweden din't want do anything into ww2 :) Thats why you deny to support Finland into 1939 - despite it was clear that you would be next.
3) If you don't know that Finland had terrain advantage ... sorry but why are you posting here. Look at the map. And if you believe that for tank division fight into heavy snow is same like into perfect weather ... hmm I don't know. Maybe kiss metal car into heavy winter :D
4)

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

Read something about polish offensive to Bologne. It was real blitzkrieg - fast combined attack with strong air support. Poles captured 50 KM into 13 days, crossing 4 rivers and 9 channels - all of them strenghtened. During with destroyed became German 4th paratrooper division and 1st division suffered big loses. Victory was possibile due to very fast match and good cooperation beetwen tanks, infantry and air forces. For me its kind of blitzkrieg.
5) You mixed Monte Cassino and Bologne when you were replying on my post of Blitzkrieg. When I was talking about Blizkrieg and Bologne battle, you wrote that Monte Cassino it was not blitzkrieg.

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

[KarlXII]

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

Nothing great about that war.

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

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

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

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

You know, I may just start answering like this:

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

THANK SWEDEN 4 UR LIVES!!!!111

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

Going to calm down.

[CBR]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you.

Just a few comments:

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

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

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

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

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


CBR

[KarlXII]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you

My apologies. It just bugs me.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you guys think of the American military?

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

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

[Marshal Murat]

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

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

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

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

By the way, Finland also had a conscripted army.

[rotorgun]

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

Polish Campaign:

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

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

Winter War:

Finnish Forces
250,000 soldiers
30 tanks
130 aircraft

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

Compare the odds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

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

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.

[rotorgun]

What do you guys think of the American military?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

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

[rotorgun]

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

See ya'll later.

[Martok]

What do you guys think of the American military?

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

My own opinion of our military forces in WW2 is that they were....okay. Decent, but not great. I suppose one could potentially argue that ours was the best (due to our significant advantages in men and material), but I usually prefer to grade such things on a per capita basis.

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

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

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

I'd say it's a bit of both. In addition to the Marines being somewhat better and more thoroughly trained, we were also able to take advantage of the Japanese' faulty tactics and doctrine.

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Thanks for the writeup.

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

I wonder if anyone would disagree.

[Tribesman]

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

Wow thats fascinating a tank armed only with machine guns , you mean just like the Germans and Russians had ,and the Brits and Americans French Italians Finns Japanese . But of course all those other armies didn't count little machine gun armed tanks as tanks they called them tanks instead .
Now of course that would just be a little comparrison , for another comparrison you could take some more similar tanks , or even identical ones say perhaps Polish and Finnish ones (though of course not little toy tanks but real ones with guns that go bang) The Finns managed to get most of theirs into action despite bad weather , the Poles kept them in reserve then drove them to Romania .