The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 54

Let's talk about the POLISH ARMY


pgtx 30 | 3,159
16 Jul 2010 #1
youtu.be/C-VWbCTavQE

youtu.be/ooOybsmoodU

Ja, żołnierz Wojska Polskiego, przysięgam służyć ...

I, a soldier of the Polish Army, hereby swear to serve loyally the Republic of Poland, to defend her independence and borders. I swear to stand by the constitution, defend the honour of a Polish soldier and military banners. I pledge not to spare my blood nor life when my Motherland is in need. So help me God.

youtu.be/_TRcF-_iBWk

youtu.be/n6aK2_4XI-E

youtu.be/vR3SavGI7_c

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Army_oaths
plk123 8 | 4,150
16 Jul 2010 #2
the main question is: "do you find them hot?" lol
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Jul 2010 #3
They sustained heavy casualties in Afghanistan and for what? To make Poland a future target for terrorists? Bravo! Doesn't a 42-country NATO coalition, with the help of elite special forces from around the world, have the might to overcome a group of frail, old men with old weapons? We are being sold a joke on a daily basis through newspapers. Yeah, Russia failed but they were but one country in unfamiliar terrain. The Taliban will only be defeated by dying of laughter and that's it.

I'm not gonna compliment any troops here as we made an enemy of the Taliban. The CIA sells drugs and launders money so why can't the Taliban do it in their own country? At least they don't meddle in many other countries like the CIA does.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Jul 2010 #4
Seanus

Because its a NATO enterprise and we have to be there, f*ck morality and all that, NATO demands and we have to go least we give a pretext to be abandoned just like in 39.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Jul 2010 #5
Do you think they would have beheaded Stanczak had the Polish army not been in Afghanistan? It costs a lot for the army to be there and what benefits does it bring? A reduction in terrorism? No, it merely brings the hornets out of the nest and we are fed bogus stats to make us believe we are winning. Claptrap!
moneymad 3 | 29
16 Jul 2010 #6
I stand with Seanus on this one.

This is America's 'problem, not 'war'. They started it to steal oil.

Does everyone really believe that America woke up one day with a new found love for the Iraqi, afghani people?

Certainly not.

State crime written all over it and the UK poodle is there too for the ride.

Illegal invasion/occupation.

I have no respect/sympathy for any killed allied soldiers in this one.

NATO is America, so America demands its puppet states to follow more like.
plk123 8 | 4,150
16 Jul 2010 #7
have the might to overcome a group of frail, old men with old weapons?

lol.. old and frail? and no, they don't have the might.. check out the terrain they have to take taliban on..

why can't the Taliban do it in their own country?

because all of afghannistan is not their country..

At least they don't meddle in many other countries like the CIA does.

no, they just fly planes into building and blow up embassies etc.

Do you think they would have beheaded Stanczak had the Polish army not been in Afghanistan?

yes

we are fed bogus stats to make us believe we are winning.

what do they feed you there in PL because i don't see anything about winning anywhere?

This is America's 'problem, not 'war'. They started it to steal oil.

wtf? what oil?

afghani people?

do you even have a clue why USA is there?

Illegal invasion/occupation.

afghanistan? you are clueless, aren't you?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Jul 2010 #8
I know the terrain but have you watched videos where Apaches scour the whole area and give signals to the ground troops of their position? Highly effective IMHO. I keep recommending this book and I recommend Poles to read it. 'Modlitwa o deszcz' by Wojciech Jagielski :) He shows the nature of the terrain very well and I've watched umpteen videos now.

No but it's more theirs than it is NATO's.

None of the hijackers were Afghans. Read up on Carl Schwarz and his commentary on Brightest Corp. They tied up a case in the courts involving the Taliban. It's all about oil, plk123. Going after the Taliban was lunacy. The CIA hires agents to do their bidding for them.

Possibly but I doubt it.

There are various accounts on the net, plk.

Look at pipeline routes, there's your sign ;) ;)
plk123 8 | 4,150
16 Jul 2010 #9
It's all about oil, plk123.

there is no oil in afghanistan

Going after the Taliban was lunacy.

why

Look at pipeline routes, there's your sign ;) ;)

maybe, mabe not.. i know about the pipeline from long ago.. taliban was fine with the pipeline tho..
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Jul 2010 #10
Eh, once again I refer you to pipeline proposals. I see you haven't watched many documentaries on the rationale for the war there, plk.

Because you are invading the land of a sovereign country.

No, they weren't. Please read up on Hamid Karzai when he was a consultant for Unocal and you'll see.
GUZY 5 | 8
20 Jul 2010 #11
it's not about oil, it's about HEROIN
guzzler 1 | 88
20 Jul 2010 #12
I have no respect/sympathy for any killed allied soldiers in this one.

Nobody is asking you for sympathy Muslim.
Marek11111 9 | 816
21 Jul 2010 #13
I do have respect for all that getting killed
I do not have respect for people that send soldiers to kill and get killed
grubas 12 | 1,391
1 Sep 2010 #14
Polish army is a joke.Half of them is somwhere around the world anyway.It would be a bigger disaster then 1939.History teaches us that Poland can not rely on other nations (allies)when it comes to her security What Poland needs is a couple dozens of middle range missiles armed with nuclear warheads.This will the best guaranty of Polands independence.Poland needs to acquire tech and material to build nukes and work on middle range missiles development.I hope our great allies of US or Israel would help,but if not Poland should talk to other states with some accomplishments in these fields.There will be a lot of diplomatic pressure at first but once Poland get few nukes and promise that we will NEVER use them UNLESS attacked everyone will get over it.
jasinski 10 | 62
1 Sep 2010 #15
maybe poland isnt scared of terrorists like alot of europe seems to be. and isnt going to let
threats and intemidation dictate her society. maybe some countries dont like to hide. Now lets talk about your pathetic need to get on forums that you dont even care about just to talk trash.

and before this turns into a wwII "debate" Poland also did not give into threats during that time. before WWII actually started they were the first country to refuse hitlers territory demands. after he had already taken two countries.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
1 Sep 2010 #16
It wouldn't hurt to have a few nukes :)
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
1 Sep 2010 #17
grubas

No Poland doesn't need nuclear warheads. There were two countries that stood up to Germany before England and France declared war, that was Poland and Switzerland. Poland was unsuccessful but Switzerland maintained its sovereignty.

Poland should follow Switzerland's lead. Get rid of professional army and resurrect the AK in the form of a reserve citizen army, part time. Use them to defend homeland but in times of peace they can be used in national emergencies and maintain infrastructure. If NATO needs troops activate an AK unit for a 6 mo. or 12 mo. detail. Design and build your own weaponry, aircraft, armaments, etc. Poland doesn't need to compete with the latest weaponry like nuclear warheads.
convex 20 | 3,978
1 Sep 2010 #18
before WWII actually started they were the first country to refuse hitlers territory demands. after he had already taken two countries.

Well, him and the Hungarians and the Poles...lets not forget that.

Switzerland maintained its sovereignty

For a while. You have to also think about the fact that Switzerland is a naturally defendable country, Poland isn't.

Nuclear warheads are the cheapest guarantor of national sovereignty in existence.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
1 Sep 2010 #19
Forgetting the politics for a moment , Polish troops are getting valuable combat experiance during the current involvement....

If a war ever came to Poland , would you want to send into action soldiers that had never been in combat...????
grubas 12 | 1,391
1 Sep 2010 #20
For a while. You have to also think about the fact that Switzerland is a naturally defendable country, Poland isn't.

Exactly,in a mountain pass small unit can easily hold off much larger force.But Poland is pretty much flat.

Forgetting the politics for a moment , Polish troops are getting valuable combat experiance during the current involvement....

I don't get it,what fighting a bunch of ragheads has to do with defending Poland?If they had to defend Poland they would be dealing with thousends of enemy tanks and planes and Iskanders would be falling all over the place.What kind of experience of fighting Russian or German army in Poland are they getting in Afg?If a war came to Poland,it would be exact September 1939 scenario only faster coz the country is smaller.
Mr Grunwald 22 | 1,641
1 Sep 2010 #21
There can be other scenarios

Germany falls apart + civil war

NATO falls apart

Minor countries wants to improve their living so they join in a coalition to partition Poland
For instance Ukraine+Lithuania+Slovakia+ Belarus

THere are many options and we never know what will get hit tomorrow.
Marek11111 9 | 816
2 Sep 2010 #22
grubas:
,it would be exact September 1939 scenario only faster coz the country is smaller.

No it will not be faster just look at the equipment Poland has. It will be the end to Germans to invade Poland.
Poland will win in any fighting between Germany and Poland
Grubas you could not be more wrong.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
2 Sep 2010 #23
I don't get it,what fighting a bunch of ragheads has to do with defending Poland?

Combat experiance is combat experiance , it does not matter if its against trained soldiers or insurgents , trust me , getting shot at feels the same no matter who is doing the shooting , and having soldiers that have fought against the Afghans is better than sending troops into action that have never been under real enemy fire....

No matter how often troops go on exercise , or how realistic you make it , there is nothing that comes close to being under fire from people who are trying to kill you , and having guys around you that are used to it gives you some confidence you are going to come through it...

Lets hope Polish soldiers are not called on to defend Poland again , but if they are , i would rather they are led into action by guys that have had some combat training , and can do the job under fire...
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
2 Sep 2010 #24
Discussing Poland's Army. Seeing that hindsight is 20/20 let's look back at 1939 and see how we can apply lessons for the 21st century.

After Poland kicked out Russia in 1922, this is what they should have done.

Firstly, Poland should have solidified it's borders.

Secondly, maintained a large Reserve army (ala Switzerland)

Thirdly, it should have gone out and got as many surplus WWI planes as possible. They could have used the WWI planes in 1939 not as fighter planes but as ground support much like modern day helicopters.

Fourth, manufactured as many armaments as possible (i.e., small arms, artillery, ammunition, etc. don't import).

Polish troops supported by WWI ground support airplanes would have been successful against German blitz. Instead Poland tried to compete with Germany, as a result they never had enough stuff.

How does this apply today? Don't get in arms race with Neighbors. Do what you can, with what you have. forget about nuclear. Invest in aircraft that compliment Polish topography. And manufacture them here. Maybe buy the machinery of the A-10 which isn't being produced anylonger. KISS (keep it simple stupid).
delphiandomine 85 | 18,254
2 Sep 2010 #25
Firstly, Poland should have solidified it's borders.

Easier said than done. Poland just didn't have the money - and they had a long, long border with hostile neighbours. Virtually none of her neighbours at the time were on good terms with the Poles, except possibly the Czechoslovaks - so Poland would have had to defend a very, very long border. It just wouldn't have been possible to solidify them, especially given the economic circumstances of 1922.

Secondly, maintained a large Reserve army (ala Switzerland)

This might have made sense, but only if the combat plans were to involve guerilla warfare rather than the conventional man-to-man battles of the day.

They could have used the WWI planes in 1939 not as fighter planes but as ground support much like modern day helicopters.

It wouldn't have done anything to prevent the rapid German advance - WW1 aircraft would have been absolutely useless against blitzkrieg.

Fourth, manufactured as many armaments as possible (i.e., small arms, artillery, ammunition, etc. don't import).

But with what? The financial troubles of the 2nd Republic are very well known.

Instead Poland tried to compete with Germany, as a result they never had enough stuff.

They were numerically outnumbered and psychologically beaten by the realisation that they had to fight Germany alone - sure, they might have lasted a few more days, but in your scenario, the Germans would still have managed to succeed. It also wouldn't have helped a bit against the two pronged attack.

I've said it a thousand times - the only hope for Poland in 1939 would have been to fight a guerilla war where potentially, every man, woman or child could be carrying a gun in which to murder Germans with. The Russians wouldn't have wanted to invade as long as the Polish armed forces were intact - and the Germans may not have had the stomach for a long guerilla war that they couldn't win.

But really, Poland lost the war in the early 20's - by conquering part of Lithuania and refusing to grant autonomy to Galicia - they all but sealed their fate. A smarter move would have been to build alliances with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania, as well as granting Ukrainians a great deal of autonomy in exchange for military cooperation. If they had also enfranchised the Jewish population, then - perhaps she would have survived relatively intact.
AussieSheila 5 | 75
2 Sep 2010 #26
Poland stand no chance against Russia or Germany. A mere mention of Russian or German Army will send shiver down the spine of Polish soldiers and probably flee as far away as possible in case of any invasion. The only way Poland could maintain absolute deterrence is by letting American military bases in Poland or acquiring nuclear weapons, preferably Hydrogen Bomb and short range to medium missiles. The first option is more practical while the 2nd option will have far reaching consequences, including expulsion from EU, sanction by Western Countries and may not have the technology after all.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
2 Sep 2010 #27
delphiandomine

Poland just didn't have the money

Yes, but what money they did have they imported too much

WW1 aircraft would have been absolutely useless against blitzkrieg.

No match against Messerschmidt in dogfight but legitimate in ground support role. Besides many thousands were available as surplus after the War. Shear numbers would have minimized deficiencies.

A smarter move would have been to build alliances with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania, as well as granting Ukrainians a great deal of autonomy

Totally agree. But that's what i mean by solidifying borders. Instead Poland was expanding their borders. Getting in border squabbles with the Czechs, Ukys, etc.

AussieSheila

Poland stand no chance against Russia or Germany.

Nor did Switzerland but they survived intact. Of course Switzerland did have the advantage of being well established as a political unit. What were they a 500 year old democracy? Yes it was more easily defensible but so was Austria and Austria capitulated. No it wasn't geography alone it was mainly political. Switzerland was a cohesive political unit, Poland was just starting out.
grubas 12 | 1,391
3 Sep 2010 #28
Getting in border squabbles with the Czechs, Ukys, etc.

There was no such country as Ukraine at that time.

Minor countries wants to improve their living so they join in a coalition to partition Poland

Are you serious?I'd like to see them trying at least we would get back Wilno,Lwow and few other polish towns.

Poland just didn't have the money - and they had a long, long border with hostile neighbours.

It was not that bad,but money were spent not the best way (fleet instead of land forces).Besides even with the money Poland could not buy stuff we wanted to e.g french aircraft engines.They just did not want to sell them.Sadly relations with Czechoslovakia were not good at all at that time.

WW1 aircraft would have been absolutely useless against blitzkrieg.

Agree.Btw. contrary to popular belief about backwardness of Polish army PAF was the only airforce in the world with no bi planes in service.

Yes, but what money they did have they imported too much

True up to some point but on the other hand Poland ordered modern weapons too late (Hurricane's,french tanks R35 or italian hydroplans Cant Z) .Should have never bought 2 large deep ocean capable submarines from Holland,4 destroyers from England and France or large mine layer (the size of a small cruiser).BUT the bad decision was to EXPORT better planes (PZL P24 ) than PAF was using (PZL P7 and P11) to Greece (Greeks shot down many italian planes with P24s),Turkey,Bulgaria and Romania.Another plane EXPORTED to Romania and Bulgaria was modern bomber PZL P37.The export of these planes was suppose to pay for the development of new generation planes which were to enter service in 1940/41(this is why PAF skipped P24).

Yes it was more easily defensible but so was Austria and Austria capitulated.

Austria capitulated?Austria joined Germany.Czechoslovakia capitulated after they were forced by western cowards to give up their defensive positions in Sudeten Mountains and the Czechs had quite modern army at that time.

having soldiers that have fought against the Afghans is better than sending troops into action that have never been under real enemy fire

I beg to differ.Do Talibs have any artillery?How many tactical missiles do they have?Airforce?Tanks?IFV's?Never been shot at but I am pretty sure it does make a difference what the enemy is shooting from.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Sep 2010 #29
Of course Switzerland did have the advantage of being well established as a political unit.

You're an ignorant moron, Switzerland had mined all passes and was the only country that'd exchange german money otherwise Germany would have overrun it in a week.

Switzerland was a cohesive political unit, Poland was just starting out.

Rubbish again, Poland had a stable govt since Piłsudski took over but then again you're a troll who doesnt know sh*t about Poland.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
4 Sep 2010 #30
Sokrates

Switzerland had mined all passes and was the only country that'd exchange german money

They did what they could to survive. Its called the carrot and the stick.

Poland had a stable govt since Piłsudski took over

Pilsudski should have focused on stabilizing Poland instead of picking border conflicts with its neighbors. He wasn't that good for Poland. If he was, they would have been better prepared for Germany.

BTW where did Germany get the money to rearm after the German depression of the 1920's?


Home / History / Let's talk about the POLISH ARMY
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.