For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[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]

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]

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 .

[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.