European Armour

[swerve]

I'm beginning to count on you to fill out my incomplete lists.

Anyway, haven't thought of that perspective. One somehow gets duped by the 5++ % growth rates in that part of Europe. Though I know the Balts to be exceptional. At any measure I'm happy to see they're catching up with 'old' Europe.

Happy to oblige.

I have to go back. I toured the Baltics in spring 1995, near the bottom of their post-Soviet slump. Must have changed a lot since then.

 

[Falstaff]

Radio Marya

I myself was in berlin when that awful wall fell and as a german I still have so much respect for any people that rises and overthrows its communist government. And the polish people were some kind of spearhead in the 1980's with their solidarity movement.

But what is happening now there? Them brothers Kazcinsky (sorry, don't know the exact spelling) and the coalition in power are such stubborn people, caught in prejudice and religious conservatism, it's painful to see. So, as the government was elected by the people I suspect the polish people aren't that dynamic and open minded at all. And btw, they still seem to be very anti-german.

But let us leave out the new EU-members for a while: I've been watching the developments towards a joint european army for some years now and I always get the impression that it already works perfectly on an low level, operational basis, but not at all when politicians are involved.
The western european armies all are very well equipped and trained and under the constant budget pressure they developed revolutionary approaches (PPP etc.). During my service with the german army I had the impression I was sourrounded by professionals, no matter what country they were from, french, dutch, italian or british.
There sure are some equipment shortcomings as mentioned before and interoperability issues which could easily be adressed, as the industrial and technological base (and the money) is still there.
And look at the hardware:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Tiger, NH 90, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, LeClerc, PHz 2000, F100/F124/Zeven-Provinzien-Class, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, Meteor, Brimstone and so on and so on. State of the art, all of them.
And I personally don't think that all armies have to use (e.g.) the same mbt as long as things as data and ammunition are standardized and that certain chain-of-command issues are clear.

But now look at the politics and the different goals of the respective national defense strategy! The only thing we have in common is that it would be fine (and cheaper) to have a powerful joint army... But what for? What would that army do? Deter potential future enemies? Spread democracy throughout the world? Secure our raw material supplies? Protect french post-colonial interests?

I think if these issues can be solved it would just be a matter of time until we see a working european army that clearly could match about anything in the world.

 

[oskarm]

Big Ot

My God, what do you mean "who knows"?

It accord to buying new tank.

Whom is Poland going to use these on?

Defending it self? We really don’t wont to occupy Moscow again.

what is your feelings in regards to the PT91, are they going to upgrade them to PT91M.

I don’t think it is cost effective.

Their colour is blue and crimson

We use few colors of berets. Blue is used by 7th Costal Defense Brigade, Crimson by MP, and Black by our tankers.

I went to a DFAT/Austrade meeting of central european countries recently - the ex warpac countries were the most anti-russian of anything I've ever seen

Are you surprised? Who wants to live in a country similar to North Korea? And what is the most important being force to do that. :>

Or maybe they forgot who gave them East Prussia?

And took East Poland ;P

I think the expression 'ungratefull' is rather appropriate.

You are right my grand mother and her family didn’t say “thank you” for six year vacation in gulag and having unique chance of slavery working. BTW the Russian tourist office was so kind to send their own Red Army soldiers at 2 o’clock AM in winter 1939/1940 with massage you have 30 minutes to take all you can fit into one bag. Not mentioning eating grras, rats and dogs to survive. BTW 1/3 of them didn’t survived this trip.

Very few however remember the treatment Poles got from NAZIs in 1939 (and yes, I know they didn't get better from USSR, but who attacked them?).

To be exact Germans on 1st September 1939 and Russians on 17ht September 1939.

Hating Russians NOW can not change that history any more so then the Russians can change it, and they had lost far more then Poles.

Not much Poles hates Russians. Personally I have few friends in Moscow, who are guest at my home once a year. I know lots of Poles in similar situation. What we fear about Russian politics are attempts to rebuild power of USSR by incorporating its former states. That’s the reason we were supporting Baltic Countries and now supports Ukraine in its way to UE.

FutureTank I invite you to come to Poland to see how it looks and what we really thinks about Russians. I thing you will be nicely surprised.

But what is happening now there? Them brothers Kazcinsky (sorry, don't know the exact spelling) and the coalition in power are such stubborn people, caught in prejudice and religious conservatism, it's painful to see. So, as the government was elected by the people I suspect the polish people aren't that dynamic and open minded at all. And btw, they still seem to be very anti-german.

For PiS (party of Kaczyński Brothers) woted this same kind of People like for Le Pen in France so rather old and low educated, some other people who woted for them were thus who had chance to see corruption on all stats levels. Fortunately most young and middle age people woted for other parties.

And similary to our "hated to Russians" there is no hated to Germans. I lost my grand grandfather, who was killed by Germans, but I have no hated to Germans as whole. Similarly as with Russians I have few friends there.

And to finish this of topic. I think that any smart human being can distinguish between politics of nations and nations itself. So for me it is impossible to dislike whole nation. I like or dislike certain people, no mater what their nationality is.

Sorry for BIG OT

 

[FutureTank]

"Simplistic" doesn't do justice to this summation. "Utterly ridiculous" is more like it. I'll add that the Polish armed forces fought well during WW-ll they simply got swamped between two super-powers. Even still the Poles had a well organized and courageous resistance group. If anything the Poles got stabbed in the back both in 1939 and after the war by the Western allies again.

Hmmm...they wought well, but got swamped. Now there is an interesting assessment. Armies that fight well do not get swamped. There is either a winner or a looser, and no one cares after the fact how well the looser lost.
The Polish Government was WELL aware of Hitler's intentions, and so were the British and French Governments. Not only that, but they were aware of the intentions for years.
Now I bet you were not there in 1939 on the Soviet-Polish border to verify the 'got stabbed in the back' statement. Yes, the Soviets did take a lot of prisoners who were undesireable to them, and a lot of military prisoners also. However they also allowed over 300,000 civilians to cross into USSR who would have otherwise had to cope with Gestapo. I have met some of these people here in Australia. They also eventually allowed the Poles to form their own units as part of the Red Army, and they were the fourth largest national Allied combat formation during WW2.

Let's not go into the "Western allies stabbed Poland in the back after the war". Even the Polish government in London knew in 1944 what will be in 1945.

When exactly did this happen? And I'll bet you mean "Soviets" right? A little history lesson for you, What started the eventual Polish march to freedom was a 1980 workers revolt, also one in 1950, 1970, and 1976, long before such sentiment arose in Russia. At the time the Polish workers strikes were extremely unpopular among ordinary Russians, who considered the Pole "Lazy" and "spoiled". It was during this 1980 revolt that a man named Lech Walesa started making a name for himself.

What you forget is that Poland was governed by Polish Communist party. From Brezhnev onwards there was a consistently 'soft' policy towards Warsaw Pact members as long as they conformed in general.
Most of the Soviet Government was Russian/Ukranian ethincly, so I meant Russian, because a large group in the Kremling did want reform and did seek ways to improve the system, and that is where Gorbachev eventually prevailed though in a naive way. You are obviously unaware of strikes and demonstrations that were taking place in Russia in the late 80s.

I dont know. Maybe you we rent alive during this time and that explains your statements. I was part of NATO at the time, and even if I wasnt I knew that Poland was not in the organization. That means your statement about WW-lll is ridiculous. There was never a chance of a world war starting over Poland just like there was no chance in 1956 Hungary, where the Reds did actually run over people in tanks.

The extreme case (not unthinkable) was that if Poland had a change of government because of the Solidarnost influence, and unilaterally decide to exit Warsaw Pact, Warsaw Pact forces would intervene as they did in Hungary. IF NATO tried to invade GDR, it would have been WW3. Still, the Solidarnost was allowed to grow, and eventually the USSR dissolved itself, and relatively peacefully, which is more then was hoped for for 50 years.

What kept the Reds from starting WW-lll was decades of Western sons standing firm against them, "with the help of about 20,000 nukes".

Yeh, I guess its not that hard to 'stand firm' with 20,000 nukes Of course there wouldn't be too many left standing if these 'sons' decided to do something about it, and quite frankly some 'sons' in Washington are not as 'firm' as others.

 

[FutureTank]

Big Ot
________________________________________
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Whom is Poland going to use these on?
Defending it self? We really don’t wont to occupy Moscow again.

Again? When was the last time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Their colour is blue and crimson
We use few colors of berets. Blue is used by 7th Costal Defense Brigade, Crimson by MP, and Black by our tankers.
I think there was a reference to uniform as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
I went to a DFAT/Austrade meeting of central european countries recently - the ex warpac countries were the most anti-russian of anything I've ever seen

Are you surprised? Who wants to live in a country similar to North Korea? And what is the most important being force to do that. :>
ISTM the reference was to CURRENT time, not pre-1986.Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Or maybe they forgot who gave them East Prussia?
And took East Poland ;P
Well I suppose since the Polish troops were in the operation in 1945 they can claim some part of the credit, but they had no say in transfer of territory based on that alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
I think the expression 'ungratefull' is rather appropriate.
You are right my grand mother and her family didn’t say “thank you” for six year vacation in gulag and having unique chance of slavery working. BTW the Russian tourist office was so kind to send their own Red Army soldiers at 2 o’clock AM in winter 1939/1940 with massage you have 30 minutes to take all you can fit into one bag. Not mentioning eating grras, rats and dogs to survive. BTW 1/3 of them didn’t survived this trip.
Funny, my own family had the same experience in 1941. The price of not being prepared to defend oneself.Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Very few however remember the treatment Poles got from NAZIs in 1939 (and yes, I know they didn't get better from USSR, but who attacked them?).
To be exact Germans on 1st September 1939 and Russians on 17ht September 1939.
If Red Army didn’t do anything, a lot more Poles would have died. Of course Stalin had his own considerations. The Polish, British and French governments knew about this possibility. I guess they didn’t do enough to prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Hating Russians NOW can not change that history any more so then the Russians can change it, and they had lost far more then Poles.
Not much Poles hates Russians. Personally I have few friends in Moscow, who are guest at my home once a year. I know lots of Poles in similar situation. What we fear about Russian politics are attempts to rebuild power of USSR by incorporating its former states. That’s the reason we were supporting Baltic Countries and now supports Ukraine in its way to UE.

FutureTank I invite you to come to Poland to see how it looks and what we really thinks about Russians. I thing you will be nicely surprised.
Its not possible to rebuild USSR. However, what the Russian government/economic ‘interests’ are trying to do is emulate the US model in economic powerplay by forcing it’s influence on the regional markets, energy in particular. I don’t want to go into a long and unrelated thread, but this does impact on military strategy because the outcome of this economic market realignment will determine capability of former WP/USSR states to budget for defence, and in turn impact on EU security policy, which I hope is why this thread is here for.
Essentially the RF government realises, as did the Gorbachev government, that military conflict in Europe would not solve anything. The ‘cold’ military standoff that lasted 50 years, has de-escalated into a rather ‘hot’ economic conflict, and one in which the US is strangely absent, because it is, since 1991, fully involved in wars of it’s own making.
I may take you up on a visit to Poland yet as I do have plans to visit Germany, Hungary, Ukraine and Russia in the summer of 2008.

 

[Tasman]

Hmmm...they wought well, but got swamped. Now there is an interesting assessment. Armies that fight well do not get swamped.

FT, I think you are missing the point a bit with this one. Superior numbers of troops , superior weapons and, especially in the case of the German attack on Poland in 1939, air superiority, can and have 'swamped' armies that have fought well.

Likewise Japanese forces in the Pacific in the later stages of WW2 were swamped by US forces, but I would claim that in many cases these troops fought very well indeed. My dad certainly thought so.

Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

FT, I think you are missing the point a bit with this one. Superior numbers of troops , superior weapons and, especially in the case of the German attack on Poland in 1939, air superiority, can and have 'swamped' armies that have fought well.

Likewise Japanese forces in the Pacific in the later stages of WW2 were swamped by US forces, but I would claim that in many cases these troops fought very well indeed. My dad certainly thought so.

Cheers

I'm not missing the point.
German numbers were not THAT superior (considering all Allied forces in 1939), and that is cerainly true for the weapons. The Poles had the option of spending more on defence, having more troops trained, developing better strategic, operational and tactical consepts and plans. So did the French and British who had the obligation to help Poland, rather then wait for Germany to attack them. Both the Poles and their Western allies lost the initiative, and that was the beginning of defeat. Many french and British units, even divisions also fought very well in 1940, but few except the historians remember that.

The Japanese didn't fight well, they just fought. Fighting well, means outmaoeuvering the enemy, and the Japanese completely lost the ability to manoeuvre on land, sea or in the air. So they just died where they stood/crouched. The Japanese were not so much swamped, as they were swated
Its called radar. In order for japanese ships to engage the US vessels they needed either visual or spoted gunnery correction. Americans, thans to the British radar technology, were able to do so without either. The conventional tactic was to send out spotter planes either as a routine search, or when enemy spotter planes were detected. However imagine the surprise for the Japanese when 16" shells would start to rain down without any American spotter planes sighted :shudder
With naval air war the Americans just got lucky early (very early is one considers the carriers being out of Pearl Harbour on the 7th).

Was your dad impressed by their tenacity in defence, or willingness to sacrifice their lives? Did he realise at the time that the Japanese soldier was not expected to be taken prisoner?

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm not missing the point.
German numbers were not THAT superior (considering all Allied forces in 1939), and that is cerainly true for the weapons. The Poles had the option of spending more on defence, having more troops trained, developing better strategic, operational and tactical consepts and plans. So did the French and British who had the obligation to help Poland, rather then wait for Germany to attack them. Both the Poles and their Western allies lost the initiative, and that was the beginning of defeat. Many french and British units, even divisions also fought very well in 1940, but few except the historians remember that.

This is not an issue of French, British and Polish defense spending in the years up to WW2. The French were armed and the British rearming since Munich (Czechoslovakia).

That the Germans were able to employ superior doctrine, takes nothing away from the perception at the time, that the mentioned countries were preparing adequately, it is only in hindsight that it becomes clear that their concept and inactivity was inferior. Your argument only works in 20/20 hindsight. An important rule in historical analysis is not to employ the cultural filters of the present.

Numbers means little.

 

[FutureTank]

This is not an issue of French, British and Polish defense spending in the years up to WW2. The French were armed and the British rearming since Munich (Czechoslovakia).

That the Germans were able to employ superior doctrine, takes nothing away from the perception at the time, that the mentioned countries were preparing adequately, it is only in hindsight that it becomes clear that their concept and inactivity was inferior. Your argument only works in 20/20 hindsight. An important rule in historical analysis is not to employ the cultural filters of the present.

Numbers means little.

Yes, I agree, numbers mean little (sometimes).
However, I amnot 'arguing' from 20/20 hindsight. Gaining the initiative is a basic requirement in military art and science known since ancient history. Knowing your enemy is also right up there with the basics.
France's great strategy was to sit behind a fortified line! The British had no plans to deploy the BEF to Poland (despite the much vaunted Royal Navy). Poland had not planned to fight a mobile enemy (and had not invested in the means to do so). All these issues were pointed out by various contemporary commentators in their respective countries. However, democracies are just bad at war because one does not fight by a committe

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes, I agree, numbers mean little (sometimes).
However, I amnot 'arguing' from 20/20 hindsight. Gaining the initiative is a basic requirement in military art and science known since ancient history. Knowing your enemy is also right up there with the basics.
France's great strategy was to sit behind a fortified line! The British had no plans to deploy the BEF to Poland (despite the much vaunted Royal Navy). Poland had not planned to fight a mobile enemy (and had not invested in the means to do so). All these issues were pointed out by various contemporary commentators in their respective countries. However, democracies are just bad at war because one does not fight by a committe

But of course! WW1 was barely 21 years away - what do you expect. Initiative wasn't the order of the day! Mobile warfare was untried and didn't recieve enough attention - and this is not a function of defence spending. That's what I mean: You employ your filters or 20/20, instead of putting yourself in place of the people at the time.

Poland was out of reach for French or British forces. The security guarantees for Poland were for deterrence, not support. What you suggest is a strawman.

 

[FutureTank]

But of course! WW1 was barely 21 years away - what do you expect. Initiative wasn't the order of the day! Mobile warfare was untried and didn't recieve enough attention - and this is not a function of defence spending. That's what I mean: You employ your filters or 20/20, instead of putting yourself in place of the people at the time.

Poland was out of reach for French or British forces. The security guarantees for Poland were for deterrence, not support. What you suggest is a strawman.

Oh please! All countries were writing doctrines for mobile warfare. The technology in that 20 years advanced unbelievably, to the point that Fuller told Hitler he no longer recognised his theories in the German troops he witnessed in Berlin in 1939.
The French were writing on the subject even more then the Germans actually, but that is all they were doing, writing.
The Soviets tried to use their doctrine on Japan and Finland, with varying success. Attaches from most European countries were present when Soviets demonstrated parachute drops en masse during the Kiev manoeuvres.
Sorry, not my filters. There were many people who were warning of Hitler's intentions (not least himself), and how he was going to do it.
I'm not adding anything here.
BTW, Zeev Jabotinski, a Zionist in the late 20s and early 30s, fearing for the fate of Jews in Poland among other places, went to the Jewish members of the Polish Parliament and tried to get them to influence the Polish defence policy to enhance it's defence forces, but the Parliament would not have any of it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Oh please! All countries were writing doctrines for mobile warfare. The technology in that 20 years advanced unbelievably, to the point that Fuller told Hitler he no longer recognised his theories in the German troops he witnessed in Berlin in 1939.

Yes, but did GB and France fully embrace them? No. Every country had their thinkers, practioners and trials... But was it fully embraced as the basis for fighting Germany in '39?

Filters... You are applying your view on what works and what should have been done, which is shaped by the now known knowledge of what works and what happened.

Anyhow, too much digression. I'm bowing out fror now.

 

[oskarm]

They also eventually allowed the Poles to form their own units as part of the Red Army, and they were the fourth largest national Allied combat formation during WW2.

Yes in the end of 1941 when Germans were under Moscow. But befor that they have killed ~10 000 Polish CO and NCO in woods neareby Katyn, Kharkow, Miednoie.

What you forget is that Poland was governed by Polish Communist party.

Yes Russians have bring them form Moscow. And election results showed that 99,2% of Poles woted for this comunist gov. "It's not important how people wotes but who counts wotes"! Maby thats rings a bell? And for some first years a minister of defence in "Polish" gov, was Rokossowski (Russian fleldmarshal).

 

[swerve]

Big Ot
________________________________________
Defending it self? We really don’t wont to occupy Moscow again.

Again? When was the last time?

1610-1612

 

[Tasman]

I'm not missing the point.
German numbers were not THAT superior (considering all Allied forces in 1939), and that is cerainly true for the weapons. The Poles had the option of spending more on defence, having more troops trained, developing better strategic, operational and tactical consepts and plans. So did the French and British who had the obligation to help Poland, rather then wait for Germany to attack them. Both the Poles and their Western allies lost the initiative, and that was the beginning of defeat. Many french and British units, even divisions also fought very well in 1940, but few except the historians remember that.

I'm talking about the way Polish troops fought, not the way their government planned or failed to plan. I have no argument that German tactics were superior. As far as weapons are concerned I don't think anyone can argue that Germany did not have clear air superiority which meant that Polish soldiers were at a huge disadvantage. The failure of France and Britain to spend sufficient on defence and prepare and deploy troops adequately to meet their treaty obligations with Poland was not the fault of the Polish soldier. Maybe your definition of 'fighting well' is different to mine.

The Japanese didn't fight well, they just fought. Fighting well, means outmaoeuvering the enemy, and the Japanese completely lost the ability to manoeuvre on land, sea or in the air. So they just died where they stood/crouched. The Japanese were not so much swamped, as they were swated
Its called radar. In order for japanese ships to engage the US vessels they needed either visual or spoted gunnery correction. Americans, thans to the British radar technology, were able to do so without either. The conventional tactic was to send out spotter planes either as a routine search, or when enemy spotter planes were detected. However imagine the surprise for the Japanese when 16" shells would start to rain down without any American spotter planes sighted :shudder
With naval air war the Americans just got lucky early (very early is one considers the carriers being out of Pearl Harbour on the 7th).

The Japanese soldiers on the islands were hardly in a position to manoeuvre. They were outnumbered and outgunned. Again I think we have different definitions of 'fought well'. I'm thinking of troops fighting bravely and courageously, perhaps gaining time for others, even when they know they will eventually be overwhelmed and are likely to die.

The fact that the allies had radar just made it harder for the Japanese (like German air superiority made it harder for the Poles). It doesn't lessen the effort put in by Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Was your dad impressed by their tenacity in defence, or willingness to sacrifice their lives? Did he realise at the time that the Japanese soldier was not expected to be taken prisoner?

He was impressed by their tenacity in defence and willingness to sacrifice their lives. Dad had first hand experience that Japanese soldiers were not expected to be taken prisoner. A soldier he was guarding killed himself in front of him. Dad carried psychological scars for the rest of his life from that incident. Incidentally my dad was no fan of the Japanese and he refused for years after the war to buy anything Japanese, but he did admire the courage of the Japanese soldiers and he respected the way they fought to the end.

Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, but did GB and France fully embrace them? No. Every country had their thinkers, practioners and trials... But was it fully embraced as the basis for fighting Germany in '39?

Filters... You are applying your view on what works and what should have been done, which is shaped by the now known knowledge of what works and what happened.

Anyhow, too much digression. I'm bowing out fror now.

GD, I hear what you are saying. However it is the job of the military professionals, and particularly those in high command positions to counter threats. You acuse me of having 'filters' and using 'known knowledge' but this is far from truth.

Hitler had been advertising his ambitions since Mein Kempf was published, and certainly since 1933. You are right that we are digressing from the topic, but if you look into the period, you will see tha there were people in Germany, never mind outside it who were opposing Hitler, and there was a large number of commentators who were warning of Hitler's aggressive posture. In 1939 the threat of war was so palpable it was in the European papers on regular basis.

I don't want to get into detail, but French were warned that German formation of highly mobile mechanised/motorised units were not for breaching the Maginot Line, so the passage of Belgium was the only other possibility (Switzerland was deemed too difficult). The BEF commander knew he had to keep the lines of communications open to the Channel ports for either reinforcements or evacuation (and the French knew it also). There are too many books written about the actual fighting, but not so much about the preparations that took place (or didn't take place) before the fighting.

Poland had fought a war with the USSR over the Curzon Line borders (and larger regional politics) in 1919, and settled it with the treaty of Riga, something Poland knew Stalin was not happy about (his other unhappiness was with the Finish border) since early 30s. This was also commented on in most European papers at the time, and particularly so after the war with Finland. The Poles were told they are next on Stalin's list by several sources. However it was acknowledged in Britain at least (I couldn't find a source in French) that Poland was not defendable unless it builds massive fortified lines around it's borders and conscripts virtually its entire male population. This was jusdged beyond the capacity of Polish economy. Still until 1937 that is what Stalin was expecting. Much of Soviet doctrine was on how to deal with fortified lines (which is why Stalin was all the more surprised by Army failure in Finland).

None of this is my 'filtering'.

But to get back to this thread.
What is all this 'European armour' accounting for? There is no armoured threat to EU, nor is there a probability of one.
There are however other possibilities of conflicts when having armour may prove very usefull. Warning is being provided.

 

[FutureTank]

Yes in the end of 1941 when Germans were under Moscow. But befor that they have killed ~10 000 Polish CO and NCO in woods neareby Katyn, Kharkow, Miednoie.

Yes Russians have bring them form Moscow. And election results showed that 99,2% of Poles woted for this comunist gov. "It's not important how people wotes but who counts wotes"! Maby thats rings a bell? And for some first years a minister of defence in "Polish" gov, was Rokossowski (Russian fleldmarshal).

Well, those were the times.
I think the actual number is double the number you suggest.
Wasn't Rokossowski born in Warsaw?

 

[FutureTank]

1610-1612

Hmmm...if there is one thing I dislike is people rewriting history

Firstly it wasn't a Polish Army, but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Army.
Secondly a quarter of the army was Swedes, and there were about 1000 Cossacks also.

Thirdly they didn't 'take' Moscow, but were allowed in because of internal dispute between pretenders to the Russian throne, and a Russian Army stood outside not knowing if it should storm the city as conquerors, or as liberators.

While this was going on, another Polish-Commonwealth force was trying to take Smolensk...for 20 months in fact. They took it just in time to see a popular revolt in Moskow force its Polish garrison into the Kremlin where it eventually surrendered after reported canibalism.

And of course that was 400 years ago! A long time between visits (although I believe some Poles made it to Moskow in 1812 also).

 

[FutureTank]

I'm talking about the way Polish troops fought, not the way their government planned or failed to plan. I have no argument that German tactics were superior. As far as weapons are concerned I don't think anyone can argue that Germany did not have clear air superiority which meant that Polish soldiers were at a huge disadvantage. The failure of France and Britain to spend sufficient on defence and prepare and deploy troops adequately to meet their treaty obligations with Poland was not the fault of the Polish soldier. Maybe your definition of 'fighting well' is different to mine.

As you well know and understand, there is an inseperable linkage between fighting qualities of individual soldiers, and overall strategic planning of their governments. The two have to match to secure victory.
In this case I am not suggesting that the Poles did not fight, and fight as if their life depended on it (and for many this was the case). Their political leadership was the first failure, and that happened way before 1939.

The Japanese soldiers on the islands were hardly in a position to manoeuvre. They were outnumbered and outgunned. Again I think we have different definitions of 'fought well'. I'm thinking of troops fighting bravely and courageously, perhaps gaining time for others, even when they know they will eventually be overwhelmed and are likely to die.

As soon as the IJN lost ability to manoeuvre, it became an exercise in 'take the citadel' which is a classic lesson in military art and science. Essentially it consists of a number of smaller operations that reduce the strongholds which protect the citadel until the citadel itself is breached.
Of course in case of the Japanese, all these strongpoints suddenly became independent and lacking in support. I don't even understand why US chose to storm them (aside from those required for logistic basing). They could have just starved them out.

The fact that the allies had radar just made it harder for the Japanese (like German air superiority made it harder for the Poles). It doesn't lessen the effort put in by Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Yes, of course.

He was impressed by their tenacity in defence and willingness to sacrifice their lives. Dad had first hand experience that Japanese soldiers were not expected to be taken prisoner. A soldier he was guarding killed himself in front of him. Dad carried psychological scars for the rest of his life from that incident. Incidentally my dad was no fan of the Japanese and he refused for years after the war to buy anything Japanese, but he did admire the courage of the Japanese soldiers and he respected the way they fought to the end.

Its an interesting point you make. Most Europeans today, or during WW2 did not accept the "fighting to the death" credo, nor do they accept personal sacrifice despite the odds as being a reasonable expectation.
I met someone in another forum who's brother has something to do with dealing with suicide bombers in Israel, and he tried to explain to me the mindset of such a person. I still didn't get it.
I don't have any respect for people who take life needlessly, even if ony their own.

 

[Tasman]

As you well know and understand, there is an inseperable linkage between fighting qualities of individual soldiers, and overall strategic planning of their governments. The two have to match to secure victory.
In this case I am not suggesting that the Poles did not fight, and fight as if their life depended on it (and for many this was the case). Their political leadership was the first failure, and that happened way before 1939.

Agreed!

As soon as the IJN lost ability to manoeuvre, it became an exercise in 'take the citadel' which is a classic lesson in military art and science. Essentially it consists of a number of smaller operations that reduce the strongholds which protect the citadel until the citadel itself is breached.
Of course in case of the Japanese, all these strongpoints suddenly became independent and lacking in support. I don't even understand why US chose to storm them (aside from those required for logistic basing). They could have just starved them out.

I also agree with you on this point. I guess the reason the US decided to storm them was political. IMO they wanted the American public to see the Japanese being whipped (even though it cost many American as well as Japanese lives). The Australian landings in Balikpapan were equally unnecessary IMO but were also done for political reasons. Likewise I don't think the RAAF attacks late in the war on Japanese troops cut off in New Guinea really served any tactical or strategic purpose.

Its an interesting point you make. Most Europeans today, or during WW2 did not accept the "fighting to the death" credo, nor do they accept personal sacrifice despite the odds as being a reasonable expectation.
I met someone in another forum who's brother has something to do with dealing with suicide bombers in Israel, and he tried to explain to me the mindset of such a person. I still didn't get it.
I don't have any respect for people who take life needlessly, even if ony their own

Again I personally agree with you on this issue.

Having come together on these issues we better get back on topic before we are told to.

Cheers