For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[cegorach]

Addon... I have checked some sources about the projects involving the tankettes.

It seems that ALL were supposed to be rearmed as light AT destroyers



At least 400 newest automatic cannons model A, mark 38 were ordered (called heaviest machine guns wz 38 A in Poland) for that purpose alone - only abot 50-60 were produced and between 24 and 44 tankettes were rearmed in time.




There was however a newer design. An open topped light tank destroyer/assualt cannon TKS-D.
Two experimental vehicles were delivered and fought in the 10th Motorized Brigade of colonel Maczek.

Both were destroyed in fighing to 10th September.





It is quite probably this design would be another large use for the little tank.
Much like lightly armoured German and American tank destroyers it was not a full tank for sure, but would add some firepower to the most mobile elements of the Polish army.

At that time the tank force would receive modernised 7TPs named 9 TP, new light/medium tanks called 10 TP and 14 TP as well as the real, medium tank with 76 mm cannon. All to 1942 as the industrialisation plans were expected to end.

[Tribesman]

OK just a couple of things there Cegroach .
Them tankettes

Now about the companies. Personally I wouldn't agree in the assessment. Tankettes were of little use for anything else than recon

That was their intended role wasn't it , what they was designed for , they were supposed to form the armoured reconnaisance element of the regular (not mountain)infantry divisions . Their removal into independant companies not only wasted them it denied the infantry divisions their use .

From that 100 were old Renault Ft 17s which were not used in combat, except once and were not supposed to be used.

Whereas the French did use them and the Finns mainly used them as an instant pillbox .

Renault R-35s - infantry support, not good for anything else.

An infantry support tank is an infantry support tank , it is what it is .
The French used them for that and the French tank was better armed than the tank the British used in that role(though not as well armoured) . the British were still using the same tank in the same role 3 years later .
Which kinda comes round again to the tankettes and the vehicles others used in the same role .
The British ones like the Polish were just little 2 man machine gun armed tanks . OK the British screwed up by not managing to transport many of the units to France in time which left many of the divisions without that element , but they didn't actualy strip that element from the division did they . Interestingly enough though two years later the British are using the little recon tanks (without up arming them) as tanks in armoured divisions .

However since you mention the arms deal with France , which is just the same as any other credit/lease deal .There was a slightly contentious issue over that wasn't there , in as much as one tank type the Polish wanted was not supplied in the numbers they requested .
But once again that is normal since the French like any other country would only ship the weapons when it felt its own requirement was filled and there was suffiecient spare for export .

[PanzerJaeger]

@cegorach

You honestly believe that Poland could have stopped German forces after Bzura without the Soviet Union's entrance? I read all that you posted, and none of it demonstrates how that could have been done.

Poland had a strong military, and could have potentially created a big problem for German forces. However, unfortunate decisions on the tactical and organizational level led them to be completely out-fought and their capitol surrounded. Soviet entry simply hastened the inevitable.




What about the US military versus that of the USSR? I'd be rooting for the Americans, but my money would go on the USSR.

[Adrian II]

Hurra for intelligent, factual discussion, brothers. I have nothing to contribute, but I love to read those long well-reasoned posts that lay out all the known facts in a detached manner. Kudos.

[cegorach]

Them tankettes
That was their intended role wasn't it , what they was designed for , they were supposed to form the armoured reconnaisance element of the regular (not mountain)infantry divisions . Their removal into independant companies not only wasted them it denied the infantry divisions their use .

The companies were attached to infantry divisions, so what is the point ?

They became 'independent' only for the general purpose, not on tactical or operational scale. There were no independent companies fighting on their own, unless were attached to army level HQs to be assigned wherever their commanders needed them.

Whereas the French did use them and the Finns mainly used them as an instant pillbox .

If I am not wrong in one unit + after the defeat in Flandres (were desparate).

In Poland there are two known uses.

One was to block the gate to the old fortress of Brest. Second - a small number escorted supplies for the Northern Front and a couple of old FT 17s seen some combat when Soviet forces attacked the supply columns.

An infantry support tank is an infantry support tank , it is what it is .
The French used them for that and the French tank was better armed than the tank the British used in that role(though not as well armoured) . the British were still using the same tank in the same role 3 years later .
Which kinda comes round again to the tankettes and the vehicles others used in the same role .

Of course. The problem was that R 35s were bought because there was nothing else worth buying - their use was at least problematic considering their use according to the Polish armoured doctrine R 35s were too slow to fight in dealying actions and too weak and slow to fight enemy tanks (their cannons were just too old).
That is why the single unit formed from those tanks seen limited combat only at the end of the campaign.
Noone had any illusion about their combat capabilities.

IN Poland we see no concept of an infantry support tank - it was seen as rather a waste of necessary resources. There were some plans to build assualt tanks in the future ( 14 TP to some degree), but AT use was seen as the most important one.

However since you mention the arms deal with France , which is just the same as any other credit/lease deal .There was a slightly contentious issue over that wasn't there , in as much as one tank type the Polish wanted was not supplied in the numbers they requested .
But once again that is normal since the French like any other country would only ship the weapons when it felt its own requirement was filled and there was suffiecient spare for export .

Of course. If there is nothing you really want you take what you can.

100 R 35s were bought and that is about all when it comes to armoured equipment ( there were also some H 35s, but proved badly armed and too weakly armoured, H 39s were not yet available) - the really important equipment were the airplanes ( 100 Battles, several Hurricanes and over 100 Moranes) - the problems which plagued domestic designes ( P 50 Jastrząb or especially the failed project - P 38 Wilk) meant the Polish air force needed something before home produced fighter planes are finally available.



Generally I see little purpose indiscussing that with you. I agree with almost everything and I feel it is useless to look for something to argue about just for the sake of argument.
Perhaps I will see something I feel should be corrected, but basically it is all Tribesman.



BTW The machine gun armed armoured vehicles serve their purpose , especially if the enemy doesn't expect it to appear.

Just like this 'Kubuś' ( Jake) armoured car bild by the underground before the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

@

@cegorach

You honestly believe that Poland could have stopped German forces after Bzura without the Soviet Union's entrance? I read all that you posted, and none of it demonstrates how that could have been done.

Not forever, but for at least one-two months. I don't share the optimistic plans to defend to the spring of 1940.

Anyway it much depended on what would happen in the western front - OKW was 'quite' worried about it to say the least.

Polish army was never supposed to stop the Germans forever in 1939, that couldn't happen. However it was sufficient to say that it would take a long time to remove the defences formed in the 'romanian bridgehead'.

Taking all the data into account - there were sufficient forces to form 8 division strong army already + anything which would break through German forces to the north-west of Lvov.

Factos which would matter:

- German logistical problems of all kinds,
- different weather,
- worse roads in the entire eastern Poland,
- difficult terrain conditions in that area (numerous ravines, hills, forests and rivers),
- prepared defences,
- new weaponry coming from Romania (already delivered to Romania and on its way),
- guerillas disrupting German supply lines - from 14th September the attacks were more organised. It was expected that a part of the country will fall under occupation for a time and sabotage tems were trained for that purpose - Poland had much experience with such attacks - mainly against the Soviets (in 1920s and 1930s), Czechs, Lithuanians and in once cooperation with Hungarians (Operation 'Łom' in March 1939).

Poland had a strong military, and could have potentially created a big problem for German forces. However, unfortunate decisions on the tactical and organizational level led them to be completely out-fought and their capitol surrounded. Soviet entry simply hastened the inevitable.

Considering that Poland wasn't and couldn't win ALONE you are right, BUT the question is how long and with what losses.

I don't understand what the capital means in that opinion of yours ?

After all there was nothing which wasn't in the south - highest authorities, most of reserve officer corps and reserve soldiers, several highest commands, the whole airforce, most of evacuated arsenals, sufficient supplies - everything was already in the south.
It included over 200 000 reservists and that number alone should mean something.

It was not like there was this Warsaw and nothing else mattered.

Even OKW DIDN'T EXPECT the city to be defended at all, so even the Germans didn't see Warsaw as the most critical target.

Remember that only after the Soviets attacked it became the largest defended stronghold - 'romanian bridgehead' was gone and Lvov capitulated to the Soviets on the 22nd September (after Khruschov and others agreed to allow the evacuation of the garrison to Romania - the promise which of course they didn't keep).


Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.

[Tribesman]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

[cegorach]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s

Ironic, but strange not. The 35s were a part of the general reserve, while 17s were ... something between junk and very, very last resort.

35s would see a lot of combat if the 'romanian bridgehead' was attacked. After all another unit was supposed to appear soon coming from Constanca.

and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .

It seems it was a terrible irony, but I have better...

There was a french fighter copying the designs of P 7, P 11 and P 24 family of fighters. It was one of Loire models , don't remember the number right now.

When Polish fighter pilots were shon they are expected to use it in combat in France, most of them thought it is a stupid joke, because even if P 11s and similar were most modern fighters at their time in 1940, in France nobody was willing to fly an obsolate plane like this,which was even worse than P 11c...
Especially with over 100 Moranes bought before the war which were supposed to be given finally.

But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .

Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.

Generally Finns wwre experts in using wepons from various sources - much of their artillery in 1941 was using ex-Polish cannons delivered by Germans, not to mention the wonders their pilots did with the poor Brewster Buffalo.

Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

True with the Bulgarians their armoured brigade used all kind of weaponry, but I like something more.
PZL 37 Łoś and PZL 23 Karaś used by Romanians over Stalingrad and later against the Axis troops in 1944.
Or the Pz V Panthers used against Germans in the Warsaw Uprising - unfortunatelly I cannot say if the story about a captured Pz VI Tiger is true (it was damaged and immobile so wasn't used), that would be something, almost like the Japanese rifles used by Poles in 1920 ( Siberian Brigade).

Or maybe the Polish AT rifles captured in 1939 used by German paras in Belgium or by the Italians against the Poles in North Africa would win the contest ?



BTW TKS tankette was recently found in Norway - a local guy rebuilt it as a tractor, but agreed to sell if for a low price so it is coming back.

[Kagemusha]

OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).

Well our artillery was also still using lot of these babies during winter war:



The models name was 87 k 95. It didnt have any kind of recoil mechanism and had to be re aimed after each shot. the first figure comes from the date when it was taken into use, 1887. Now that Finnish army used lot of stuff, doesnt mean that anyone with any kind of opportunity to use something else instead shouldnt have done just that, specially in winter war, our army used basicly anything they could get their hands on.
The "Russian Vickers" was the T-26.It was the main tank of our single armoured division for the majority of continuation war. Fortunately Finns captured couple KV-1 heavy tanks early on and the fate of those tanks was to drive in front and gather hits from the enemy, while the T-26 would only come out once the heavy tanks would have spotted the enemy to shoot and then scoot again.While the Jaeger infantry tried to keep up with the speed with their bicycles. This was the Finnish take on Blitzkrieg during WWII.

[PanzerJaeger]

Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.

I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.

However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties. Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura, the 35,000 captured plus casualties lost in defense of Modlin, the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock, the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska, the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers.

Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.

Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.

As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)

[Tribesman]

Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.

Yes the T-26 , both Poland and Russia bought the licence to make their own ,which made it easier for the Finns to later change their english built and armed Vickers into English built russian armed tanks (after re arming them initially with swiss weapons)

[cegorach]

I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.

Fine, but considering that Warsaw is close to the border it is rather pointless.

As quickly as the 8th September the plan was to converge towards the 'romanian bridgehead' - at that time Warsaw was not even under siege that is why Army 'Modlin' was able to cross the rivers in that area and move south - it later formed a part of the Northern Front which frought to the end ot the fourth week of September at Tomaszów against Germans and Soviets.

German offensive basically stopped around 14th September they had to regroup and deal with the unexpected developments at Bzura. At that time Wehrmacht finally had to deal with logistical problems of all kinds moving further and fruther from the borders.
In addition OKW was concerned about the western front despite French and British inactivity. They didn't know there will be no offensive and acted accordingly - each mile more to the east means another mile further from the western front.
Besides the German command was notorious in making mistakes in judgement.
Two armies on Bzura were a suprise, same like equally large forces at Tomaszów, the 'Polesie' Group and various others and that despite the superiority in the air (night marching might have something to do with it).
Almost every single battle in the later part of the campaign seen confusion on the German side which could be dealt with thanks to superior mobility and the Soviet attack.
That means if they expected to be ready to attack in the south after the 20th of September it is safe to assume more time would be necessary to continue with the attack.

However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties.

This place were considered a bastion after 9th-10th September so obviously was supposed to fight as long as possible, WHILE the real frontline would be in the south.

Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura,

Who were doomed anyway - as I said before. Only if the battle was coordinated in much better way a large part of this force would join defences of Warsaw and Modlin.

the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock,

Kock ? A nice example, for sure - considering that the force was almost completely formed after the Soviet Invasion and was cut off from Romania and Hungary.

Mind that even Warsaw's capitulation didn't change much for those soldiers - there was no drop in the morale of this group - 2,5 divisions.

Only after the force used up all artillery ammunition defeating 13th Motorized Division at Kock it had no other choice but to capitulate.

the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska

,

Do you know where it is ? ON THE BALTIC COASTLINE. In other words the most isolated place in Poland, cut off in first two days of the campaign.

Besides there were also 3000 men who capitulated in October in Hel.

the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers.

You must have forgotten about OVER 400 000 soldiers who capitulated in Tomaszów area or in the eastern Poland (mainly southern) or about 120 000 men who crossed the borders (mainly southern).
IN addition thousands of reservists (as much as 100 000) went home after the Soviet attack - not everyone had the will to fight abroad and many of those men were Belorussians or Ukrainians and had less reasons to fight outside the country (fought well against the Germnas, though).

Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.

OK. One after another.

Morale - that would be a blow, but Warsaw was cut off earlier and the soldiers knew what to expect. Notice that even despite the Soviet attack (which was much heavier blow to morale since it erazed any hopes for a successful defence) thousands of soldiers were fighting with even greater desperation.

According to the Abwehr which made the evaluation of the Polish army before the war. Polish officer corps was considered 'fanatical' and certainly despite the report was lacking much data in several areas, here it is very close to the truth, there were sufficiently many examples to back it up.

Even when fighting for honour only and without any chance to win morale was ket high in 1939, 1940 (after the fall of France more Poles evacuated and continued fighting than the French despite much smaller numbers in 1940) or especially in 1944 and 1945.
After all the Parachute Brigade fought very well at Arnhem even if it was close to a mutiny learning it will not support the Uprising in Warsaw (something it was formed to do), but somewhere in the Netherlands, a place - no offence to anyone - nobody really cared.
At the same time there is no doubt that the Polish units fought well after they learnt it is all for nothing - Yalta agreements were revealed - even the 2nd Polish Corps which was consisting mainly from Poles living in the areas given to the Soviets, even the unit in the Corps formed from ethnic Lithuanians mainly not even from Poland.

Although the soldiers fighting in the second part of the war in 1939 were less resilent it was more than sufficient.




Administration was evacuated, Warsaw was no longer a center of such activities.

Industry. There was no such impact - factories in Warsaw were not working at rate which would see any change.
Defence would be built on supplies evacuated to the south and coming from Romania, ammo stockiles were sufficient for more than three months.

Manpower ? Are you kidding ? Most of reservists were waiting for weaponry to be assigned and units to be formed, there was NO such shortage for sure - at least 400 000 reservists were in available.

Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.

As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)

The question of morale - I have dealth with that above fine, enough, but all things cosidering it was sufficiently strong to carry on.

Most of the soldiers who fought at that time were as hard as nails and even the cathastrophe of the Soviet invasion affected only some units.
As long as there was any hope for victory the fighting would continue, after all even without such hope (to win in Poland, obviously there was hope for the final victory anyway) we seen operational groups trying to get to Romania and Hungary (or Lithuania and Latvia - e.g. Reserve Cavalry Brigade 'Wołkowyjsk' or Wilno operational area) or without such options (Kleeberg's Operational Group 'Polesie') the fighting was continued until it was possible to achieve any results - a succesful escape or starting guerilla activity - much of the weaponry later used by the resistence was stockpiled in hidden places according to the orders.
Guerilla war was the last considered possibility - the underground was created according to the secret order on the 27th September 1939 with its center in Warsaw according to the orders received during the secret mission flown by the prototype bomber 'Sum'.




Basically the main question was if the capitulation of Warsaw would be a sufficiently heavy blow to the morale to break the will to fight.
I don't think so - one thing noone seriously can question is the will to fight.
It was more if the fighting can bring the final victory - only units completely cut off capitulated and that happened ussually when the situation was hopeless.
In the later part of the campaign the much reduced divisions (30 overall, with 20 formed divisions to the east of Vistula) were in fact 'Kampfgruppe' like structures - units smaller in number, but consisiting from mostly frontline elements, the combatants - the parts o the divisions not immediatelly useful in combat were discarted which meant the remaing forces were still dangerous and two that their combat capabilities were limited in time. Because more than sufficient resurces were already in place (Luftwaffe was directed elsewhere and frankly it did poor job with the railways) it was the question if there would be enough time to form new divisions and reform the old.
According to the information I have to my disposal I can say for sure there were such resources in every important area including the time.
Battle of Bzura bought time for the rest of the army and the state, similar was the purpose of the 'bastions' left behind like Warsaw, Modlin, Brest and others.
ON the 17th September forces sufficient t defend the 'romanian brdgehead' were already there - 2 division sized force with 100 airplanes, 70+ tanks and sufficient AA artillery. First line included pioneer units which were preparing defence positions and destroying approaches which could be used to those.
The problem was that noone expected the Soviet Invasion and there was no question of defence from that direction.

German highest command couldn't prevent such developments, even if it gave it the highest priority - most of their forces were locked in combat and the single useful large unit i.e. 5th Panzer Division was recovering from losses and stuck on bad roads with a number of mechanical failures and logistical issues stopping it from entering combat even when it was desperately needed (by the XXIInd Panzer Corps).
The same situation concerned all other considered forces - first offensive actons would be possible after 28th September and I don't mean Warsaw's capitulation which wouldn't happen so soon without the Soviet Attack.
That gives at least 11 days to create solid defences and evacuate more resources where necessary, but two weeks would be a better guess.


All this means that the fighting would be continued for more than another month if not more.

I doubt it would be carried on through the wintertime - the probability might be too small, but not unlikely - but at least not 100 000+ men would be evacuated, but rather 300 000 and German problems would be much larger than in reality, so their losses.



Of course that would happen only if the Soviets didn't attack which was possible on at least one condition.

No declaration in Abbeville which was a fatal mistake bordering a betrayal and a suicidal stupidity.
Stalin was too much an opportunist to attack where the fighting was raging, he wouldn't commit his forces in a campaign which could cost him something, actually he only did attack becuse of the Allied secret declaration and German information about the fall of Warsaw and the red Army suffered sizable losses in the result including 447 (!!!) tanks...

[Husar]

Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me.

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

And then I would also like to throw in the dutch, they weren't really a major power and when I asked my dad what they had to defend their borders at the start of the war he jokingly said a few men on bicycles although that could well be true. However when the dutch marine infantry arrived in Rotterdam from overseas(if I understand that correctly they were quickly recalled?) they apparently put up quite a fight and made the germans bomb the town quite a bit to finally defeat them(didn't they run out of ammunition as well?). And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.

Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states whose economical power basically won the war for the allies one might say, I find it quite amazing how they could go from not much(especially the army air force was in a rather bad shape at the beginning of WW2) to large carpet bombing operations, buiding more ships than the others could sink and also outnumbering their enemies on land, not to mention the atomic bomb, which, despite the stunning german technologies, the US got first(well, the scientists have a lot of german family names, but still ).

Finally some people mentioned swedish tanks which I didn't know existed back then. I know Sweden has made some amazing planes and ships since WW2 which I also find quite fascinating, especially since they can compete with some quite larger countries in that regard, but I had no idea they built tanks in WW2 as well.

About the whole Poland debate, I don't know enough about that, just like I prefer the later middle ages with their shiny plate armour, I prefer the later war period with the big armoured tanks (I must have some armour fetish ).

edit: almost forgot about the quiz results:

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.

British and the Commonwealth 75%
Italy 69%
Finland 63%
France, Free French and the Resistance 56%
Poland 50%
Germany 44%
United States 44%
Soviet Union 13%
Japan 13%

I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

[cegorach]

Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me.

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed

Bad is not the right word, they were terrible - weak armour (especially with much resilent steel they were using), bad doctrine and bad armament.
Japanese Type 89B might be the worst medium tank of the war...

Still they achived wonder with that equipment initially, were mad/stubborn enough to somehow carry them to inaccessible places noone expected any heavier equipment.

Besides - which I find especially funny considering all this nonsense about Polish cavalry charging tanks - their tanks were in fact charged by American cavalry during the Phillippines campaign.

I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

Several reasons with superior design as most likely a less important one.

Regardless of that the Germans made mistakes designing and producing too many types of tanks and armoured vehicles in too many versions.
So were a pure waste of resources, time and fuel - e.g. Konigtiger or Jagdtiger, not to mention Maus or the insane Ratte - 100+ t WTF were they thinking ?

And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.

Virtually every army has such elite formations and surely in combat most of them fought exceptionally well compared to 'average' units.
Urban environment is exceptionally useful for that purpose.


BTW I found something really ironic.

Westerplatte - the slightly fortified Polish outpost in Danzig which was defended for a week against 10 times larger German forces with a loss of 16 men only in 1945 German units occupied that area and fought for... a week too.

There is a story coming from Soviet sources that they surrendered learning that a Polish brigade will be sent to fight them (which just finished fighting in Gdynia few miles to the north).
That would really be something - a complete change of places like this doesn't happen too often.

Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start,

There is more than one situation when the Soviets caused much more losses than they suffered, especially in the later part of the war - the offensives in Moldavia and in western Poland-eastern Germany for example.

Germans tended to win tactical victories, but had problems with actually winning something which really mattered.

I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

Italians were unlucky to enter the war with so outdated equipment, weak industy and too much ambition.

Their defeats in Northern Africa are a bit overrated since in such environment numrical superiority doesn't translate into something tangible.
Slower moving Italians were simply cut off by motorized enemies and forced to surrender.
The loss of the infantry was also quite important factor to Rommel's demise.

On the other hand their mobile and elite formations performed quite well, especially with their terrible tanks similar to 2 year earlier designes used by other top 6 armoured forces ( Soviet Union, Germany, France, Japan, Poland) for example tankettes were still all too numerous in late 1940.

Another misfortune - the Greek campaign was initially due to a total disregard of the basic combat rules - they attacked with roughly 8 divisions which was supposed to win the war and later got stuck in the mountains where lower level tactical experience or determination mattered more.

Finally the Soviet campaign - armed with obsolete weapons and facing the full strenght of the 'Little Saturn' - a recipe for a disaster...

Italy was the weakest major power for sure and they fought in some worst places in the war, just like the French they are really underrated when it comes to some exceptionally well fought battles and skirmishes.


Personally the more I learn about this war I am more convinced that hardly anyone could be seen as a superior fighting force - there were always factors which make such claims not exactly justified.

[PanzerJaeger]

Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.

As good as the late war German armour was - and it was very good - those ratios have more to do with skill and experience than anything else. German tankers were simply amazing, in a class of their own.

The reason the ratios aren't 20:1 is that the USSR actually had some very good tanks. The T34/76 and T34/85 were extremely solid tanks. They came into their own at a time when the Pz.IV was the main German medium tank. I've read a lot about armoured combat in the East and there is a consant refrain of German commanders in Pz.IVs, Pz. IIIs, StuGs, etc outmanuevering their Soviet rivals, only to have their repeated shots bounce right off. Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy - things would have been dire indeed.

Tank warfare in the East is often characterized as a David and Goliath struggle, with the lowly T-34 fighting the mammoth Tiger. While this was true in some circumstances, with Tigers pulling off amazing victories against far greater forces, most of the Panzer Korps was fighting in inferior tanks - yet still managed the success that they did.

When it comes to the big cats, such as the Tiger, Panther, King Tiger, and some of the big tank destroyers, their biggest enemies were themselves. In proper working order, they were amazingly effective against far greater forces.

Unfortunately for the Germans, late war pressures meant an increase in production faults and logistical issues. As you mentioned, that meant that these beasts succumbed to mechanical breakdowns or a lack of logistical support more often than enemy fire. Also, the growing Soviet air presence became increasingly deadly to German AFVs of all types. (It was never as big of an issue as it was on the Western Front, where German tanks could barely manuever at all.)

It is also imporant to mention that tank versus tank combat was not as typical as portrayed. While plenty of it went on, assaults against enemy infantry and fortified positions were far more common experiences. Commanders typically wanted to preserve their tanks for armoured thrusts, and prefered to engage enemy armour with tank destroyers, AT guns, or other methods.

Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states

The Russian military became better as the war progressed. It never quite reached the level of German military thinking, but far surpassed the other allies.

The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manuever in the East. In the begining, the Germans encircled and destroyed enormous armies. Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk, Manstein and other German commanders were able to pull off some amazing tactical victories against huge odds, such as Kharkov.

However, a tactical victory that would have been a huge blow to an equally sized military meant very little to the Russian command. They simply pulled back, wrote another hundred thousand soldiers off the books, and pressed on with their war of attrition.

It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war.

I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*

Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat.