Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 494

Western Europe and America vs Russia WWII - chances of Poland being saved


Sasha 2 | 1,083  
29 May 2009 /  #121
They saw Stalingrad on the bookshelf

Written in 1839, it is probably the best yet insight into the Russian mindset.

I've just ordered them both. Wait for my Russian review... :))
Well I can already say something about the second book. Keeping in mind my personal experience I've always been very suspicious about books of that kind. He spent only three months in Russia and wrote it... How can we see it any else way but the first impression (or cultural shock, or whatever)?! To say nothing about that it could any describe Russian mindset... I would certainly stay away from such a bluster. The other thing is that we're all different, hence own different impressions. When I came to the US first time I just walked open-mouthed and enjoyed the nature, the people, the country on the whole, while some of my Russian mates couldn't curb their antagonism against American lifestyle. What would be our books like after three month of staying there, given that I'd probably be prone to describe advantages, whereas friends of mine - disadvantages?! Later... the more I lived there the more I realized it got harder and harder to describe the US and Americans. Now I see any description would be pointless... the first impression left behind long ago and as for nowadays I just live and enjoy things which I like in the US... same for Russia.

The book should be interesting for Russians as another impression of foreigner which would perhaps make us change something, but that's for sure can't be more or less precise wording of Russian mindset.

The other point is that book was written in 1839. Nothing stays the same.
southern 75 | 7,096  
29 May 2009 /  #122
In my opinion the Germans lost in Stalingrad because the Russians were too hard.They had also more heavy weapons and PPSh41 was superior to the german MP40 giving advantage to Soviets in short distance battles where what mattered was the quantity of gun power.

Most of all I think the Germans were impressed that Russians were so touch,Wehrmacht soldiers and SS considered themselves the touchest in the world but russian touchness was of different kind,it was too primitive for the Germans to understand its radicality.Simply the Soviets came in hordes to eat the Germans alive and they had no respect for human life either for their own.

And of course the communist commisars were behind each battalion to give a bullet in the head to those willing to surrender to enemy which meant that the soviet soldier had only one choice.
Salomon 2 | 436  
29 May 2009 /  #123
Russians didn't respect their own soldiers and had very high casualties ...

from the other hand they had some superior weapons... T-34 is the best example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34. First encountered on 23 June, 1941,[citation needed] the T-34 outclassed the existing Panzer III and IV. At the insistence of General Heinz Guderian, a team was dispatched to the Eastern Front to assess the T-34. Among the features of the Soviet tank considered most significant were the sloping armor, which gave much improved shot deflection and also increased the effective armor thickness against penetration

Germans wanted to copy it but Hitler forbbiden it from the political reasons ... it would be the shame for Germans to copy weapons from worst humans... and he thought that it could break German morale as long as it would be the best prove of their fake propaganda ... T-34 was main reason why Germans developed Panther (Panzer V) tank.

BTW ... Poland in 1939 had some superior weapons in comparison to German. Frontline was to long and Germans were too numerous ....

Anny way:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7TP

The 7TP was the Polish light tank of the Second World War,it was significantly better armed than its most common opponents, the German Panzer I and Panzer II. A standard tank of the Polish Army during the Polish Defensive War of 1939, its production never exceeded 140 vehicles.

Although technically superior to any of the German tanks of the era, the 7TP was too scarce to change the outcome of the war.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.37_£oś

The PZL.37 £oś (Polish: moose) was a Polish twin-engine medium bomber, used in the Invasion of Poland in 1939. Thanks to the laminar-flow wing it was one of the most modern bombers in the world before World War II.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle,_model_35

Karabin przeciwpancerny wzór 35 (abbreviated "kb ppanc wz. 35"; "anti-tank rifle, model 35"), was a Polish 7.92 mm anti-tank rifle used by the Polish Army during the Polish Defensive War of 1939. It was also known by its code name, kb Urugwaj (kb Ur), or by the name of its designer, Józef Maroszek.


OP Wroclaw Boy  
30 May 2009 /  #124
Although technically superior to any of the German tanks of the era, the 7TP was too scarce to change the outcome of the war.

That tank doesnt look superior its got that high turret similar to the sherman which is kind of crying out hey hit me here.

Lots of vertical steel no good for deflecting shots, and yes the British tanks of that era were pretty poor too.

Has anybody seen the Panzer at the Imperial British war museam with a nice shell sized hole in the side.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #125
BTW ... Poland in 1939 had some superior weapons in comparison to German. Frontline was to long and Germans were too numerous ....

What do you want to say here Luki?
Not only had Poland the of course better soldiers but also the better army? :)
Babinich 1 | 455  
30 May 2009 /  #126
In my opinion the Germans lost in Stalingrad because the Russians were too hard.

The Stalingrad loss was a caused by hubris.
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #127
hat tank doesnt look superior its got that high turret similar to the sherman which is kind of crying out hey hit me here.

We are talking about 1939

In 1939 German tanks looked like that

Panzer I

Panzer II

That tank doesnt look superior its got that high turret similar to the sherman

Sherman is tank from later stages of the war for sure not from 1939:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

The pilot model of the M4 was completed on 2 September 1941.

What do you want to say here Luki?Not only had Poland the of course better soldiers but also the better army? :)

I am just breaking some stereotypes... Germans had more tanks and more planes and more soldiers but it didn't make their equipment superior.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #128
Poland was the first great "excerise" for the german forces too...
And observing during the french campaign training (superior equipment + superior numbers), skill and superior tactics account for the success more than equally.
Torq 32 | 2,999  
30 May 2009 /  #129
I'd just like to remind you that September 1939 campaign was nothing
else but one big encirclement battle with our forces strained on a too long
front, not possesing enough tanks and airplanes, Germans attacking from the
West, North and South (with their Slovakian vassals helping them there) and
just over two weeks into the war Russians attacking from the East.

Our army was ready to carry on with the plan of defending so-called "Przedmoście
Rumuńskie", some counter attacks (like the one at Bzura) were being prepared but
then Soviets entered from the East and it was over.

No army in the world would have performed better than Polish in such circumstances.
All you have to do is look at Barbarossa campaign, territorial gains and losses that
Germans inflicted on the Red Army in the first weeks of the war.
Or even at the French campaign in 1940 where French had advantage in both numbers
and equipment, British Expeditionary Corps and didn't have Soviets attacking them two
weeks into the war.

So, yes - it was tactics, numbers and being encircled by the enemy from the very
start that caused the defeat in September campaign (stopping the mobilization
couple of days before the war to give British and French time for "negotiations"
didn't help either).
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #130
Yeah...remind me...without the german army the Poles were "in one week in Berlin", right??? :):):)
Torq 32 | 2,999  
30 May 2009 /  #131
Say what?
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #132
And observing during the french campaign training (superior equipment + superior numbers), skill and superior tactics account for the success more than equally

Well I agree that military doctrine of Blitzkrieg was the Germans strong point but it doesn't make German tanks or equipment superiour. Germans had some good weaopns but they were mostly response for what somebody ealse had invented, wunderwaffes from last period of the war were mostly unpractical but technicaly interesting toys ...

I am not going to mention reasons of German problems with supplies :


ZIMMY 6 | 1,601  
30 May 2009 /  #133
The German soldier was a tough adversary because the German soldier was so obedient, not unlike the masses of hysterical Germans who worshipped their fuehrer.
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #134
Another mith on west about WWII is that it was Americans who liberated Europe ... yes French people welcomed Americans but the other fact is that 75% of German forces fought on eastern front ...
Torq 32 | 2,999  
30 May 2009 /  #135
The German soldier was a tough adversary

Of course they were. Starting from 972 in Cedynia until 1945 they
were our toughest opponents for nearly 1000 years.
Sure - Russians or Turks were no whiping boys either but in generel
I'd say that Germans were always our most formidable enemy
(I might even respect them for that if they didn't turn out to be
murderous barbarians not in the 10th but in 20th century).
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
30 May 2009 /  #136
That tank doesnt look superior its got that high turret similar to the sherman which is kind of crying out hey hit me here

Thats wikipedia for you, the tank was very good for its time and ceirtanly superior to PZ I and PZ II it was in virtually all respect the equivalent of the German Pz 38

Yeah...remind me...without the german army the Poles were "in one week in Berlin", right??? :):):)

You mean without the Russian army? No but conquering Poland would likely stretch well into 1940 rather than last 30 something days.

The German soldier was a tough adversary because the German soldier was so obedient

The German soldier was the best at the time, that is to say not becuase he was German but because Germans were the first to take professional military training seriously.

Poland was the first great "excerise" for the german forces too...

You owe that excersize fully and completely to Russia, without its 800k soldiers you'd be stuck under Warsaw for another four or five months, even your generals confirmed it in the diaries.
Torq 32 | 2,999  
30 May 2009 /  #137
"excerise"

Good thing that you used quotation marks, because that would be
a strange excercise during which you lose:

16 343 killed,
27 280 wounded,
993 tanks and armoured vehicles,
11.000 mechanical vehicles,
564 airplanes and
370 artillery pieces.

Some excercise!
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #138
another weapon : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41



he PPSh-41 (Pistolet-Pulemyot Shpagina; Russian: Пистолет-пулемёт Шпагина; Shpagin Machine Pistol; nicknamed Pah-Pah-sha, Shpagin and Burp Gun) submachine gun was one of the most mass produced weapons of its type of World War II. It was designed by Georgi Shpagin as an inexpensive alternative to the PPD-4

The captured PPSh was in particular a favorite weapon of the Germans.Because of the similarities between the 7.62x25mm Tokarev and the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge used in the Mauser C96 pistol, the PPsh was easily supplied with ammunition. In fact so many were captured that it became the second-most-common submachinegun used by German forces.

Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
30 May 2009 /  #139
16 343 killed,
27 280 wounded,

Thats problematic at best, Wehrmacht was in 1939 not up front with its casualities, there's instances of battle where SS units lost several hundred members, in the battle of Wizna Guderian lost thousands of dead and it was never admitted exactly how many German troops died since this victory was so humiliating.

Its entirely possible that fatalities were closer to 50 thousand maybe even more.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #140
It was the first real war situation for the new Wehrmacht and the new tactics...youknowwhatImean!

...

Ja ja..Sokrates...we know....the best Soldier of the world: Polish
The best army of the world: Polish
Always winning (especially against the Germans)
:)

because the German soldier was so obedient,

Depends on what you mean by this!
The high skill level of even the lower NCO's was well known and the german "Auftragstaktik" was notorious with the enemies.

In mission-type tactics the military commander gives their subordinate leaders a clearly defined goal (the mission) and the forces needed to accomplish that goal with a time within which the goal must be reached.
The subordinate leaders then implement the order independently. The subordinate leader is given, to a large extent, the planning initiative and a freedom in execution which allows flexibility in execution...

Especially at the Russian front where men and material fought continously against an overwhelming force the soldiers had to make quick and independent decisions often.

No place for always asking what they should do....

"obedient" as in following their orders....well loyalty and discipline were maintained high till the last days, that's right!
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #141
he was German but because Germans were the first to take professional military training seriously

... some German units were strong and proffesionaly trained... Most weren't ...

"obedient" as in following their orders....well loyalty and discipline were maintained high till the last days, that's right!

Do you know how many guns were sold by German "disciplined" soldiers for Polish underground...
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #142
... some German units were strong and proffesionaly trained... Most weren't ...

Especially at the beginning they ALL were...
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #143
At the begining German army was the best in preparation for the war ... as long as Germans planed war against half of the world ...
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #144
....another p*ssing contest in the making??? :)

another weapon :

Did you know that the famous AK-47 was german designed (Schmeisser):

Mihail Kalasnikov is admitting he was "helped" by the German inventor and arms maker Hugo Schmeisser to create the AK-47 assault rifle

-- The German inventor developed the first assault weapon Sturmgewehr 44 during WWII. After the end of the war Schmeisser was displaced and forced to work in the Soviet Union

worldaffairsboard.com/small-arms-personal-weapons/50106-mihail-kalashnikov-admits-german-help-create-ak-47-rifle.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#1940s.E2.80.93early_1950s:_Maschinenkarabiner.2C_Sturmgewehr_.26_AK-47
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601  
30 May 2009 /  #145
"obedient" as in following their orders....well loyalty and discipline were maintained high till the last days

Is obedience a German trait?
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #146
Did you know that the famous AK-47 was german designed (Schmeisser):

Well it is still controversial ... but you might be right.

Anny way we have also "Polish Russians" section on this forum ...

BTW Poland has radars which detect American planes build in Stealth technology ...

Stealth technology also known as LO technology (low observable technology) is a sub-discipline of military electronic countermeasures which covers a range of techniques used with aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles, in order to make them less visible (ideally invisible) to radar, infrared, sonar and other detection methods.

Only because we are allies ... Poland doesn't use it on NATO exercises
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #147
Is obedience a German trait?

If you mean "discipline" I would say yes.
Depends on what you mean by that...

Poland doesn't use it on NATO exercises (to don't make americans look silly)

Heh :):):)
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601  
30 May 2009 /  #148
It was understood in the U.S. that Germans liked to follow orders.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591  
30 May 2009 /  #149
Well...how should an army function otherwise?
What are you meaning with that???
Or do you mean civilian "orders" as in laws?
Yes, Germans are more prone to actually stop at a red traffic light than foreigners (especially good to observe in Berlin)...yes, I think Germans follows their laws generally (broad generalization of course).

But you don't have to "like" it to accept the need to stop at a red traffic light...or do you mean a German is happily hopping around seeing a red traffic light as in: "YAY! I'm allowed to stop at this red traffic light again..YAY...at last...man I'm so happy, what a great day!"

Do you mean something like this? :)
Salomon 2 | 436  
30 May 2009 /  #150
military-quotes.com/forum/hits-polish-defense-industry-t51365.html

Half a century of achievements of Polish radiolocation industry and talents of the designers from Warsaw's "Przemysłowy Instytut Telekomunikacji" (PIT) (Industrial Telecommunication Institute) decided that NATO has chosen PIT's radars N12 M for tracking the eastern borders of the Alliance. Mounted on towers - three long distance radars have been integrated with the entire NATO system of its airspace control. The experts say that a true hit is a sophisticated data processing. Our programmers have shown their class here. The radars let the NATO commanders see exactly what happens in the airspace, several hundreds kilometers away from the radiolocation posts.


Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Western Europe and America vs Russia WWII - chances of Poland being savedArchived