MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > GENERAL WW2 TOPICS > WW2 Military History & Equipment

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 21-04-05, 15:40
Mark W. Tonner's Avatar
Mark W. Tonner Mark W. Tonner is offline
Senior Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 3,027
Post Re: petrol or diesel

Gregory;

Have you ever heard the term that the German's had for the petrol fuelled Shermans of "TOMMY COOKER".

Cheers
__________________
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 21-04-05, 15:45
Crewman's Avatar
Crewman Crewman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 210
Default Re: Re: petrol or diesel

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark W. Tonner
Gregory;

Have you ever heard the term that the German's had for the petrol fuelled Shermans of "TOMMY COOKER".

Cheers
Mark,

No, I heard only "Ronson".


Best regards

C.


PS. I set up new thred about gas- and diesel-powered Allied tanks because it seems to be an interesting subject. For more information click here.

Last edited by Crewman; 21-04-05 at 16:08.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21-04-05, 17:11
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Maybe I'm wrong,but weren't they only a short series of prototypes?I know that Germans had made a small amount of tank diesel engines ,but they were never been used at battlemachines.Writting about tank diesel engines I was thinking about typical product ,not about "trying" models,even they were used at battlefields.Of course I can be wrong about US tanks,but I'm sure that Germans were unable to build a good tank diesel engine for normal production.About US Sherman I've read something strange some time ago,author wrote that first model of Sherman was powered by 5 (five) car engines connected together,I think it wasn't a battle model,rather a "trying" one,I couldn't even imagine how to coordinate the work of five small engines at one tank!Maybe the same situation was with that models You've written about,but I agree I could made a mistake writting that:" only Russians and Poles were making tank diesel engines at WW II".
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21-04-05, 18:30
Tony Smith's Avatar
Tony Smith Tony Smith is offline
No1, Mk 2** (I'm back!)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lithgow, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,042
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bartek
About US Sherman I've read something strange some time ago,author wrote that first model of Sherman was powered by 5 (five) car engines connected together,I think it wasn't a battle model,rather a "trying" one,I couldn't even imagine how to coordinate the work of five small engines at one tank!
Bartek, see the thread Sherman M4A2 diesel engine designation
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21-04-05, 19:55
Crewman's Avatar
Crewman Crewman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 210
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bartek
I know that Germans had made a small amount of tank diesel engines, but they were never been used at battlemachines.
Hi Bartek,

Yes, of course you are right when it comes to the German tanks. The Allies tried to develop the diesel-powered tanks however and restricted number of them served both in the PTO and Europe.

Best regards

C.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21-04-05, 21:04
Norm Cromie (RIP) Norm Cromie (RIP) is offline
48th Highlander
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S. Calif.USA
Posts: 182
Default war in Poland 1939

Stellan
Your documentation of the Polish German conflict has been well researched and very informative, but as we now begin to probe the thread theory and the possibility of many more undiscovered dimensions. I now believe that we will find that we do live in a world of random confusion with the law many of possibilities. One has only to look at the rise in power of individuals such as Alexander, Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill, who had the personality to recruit many of their devoted blind followers. In light of the misery and demise of millions of humans one must conclude that a dimension in evolution could be an intangible force. If one looks at some turn arounds of the powers of warring nations against often times unbelievable odds, this certainly has to be an indisputable behavior of our yet undiscovered workings of our universe of which we have no control.
One has to question the morality of the powers of the universe when you see a starving child digging in a garbage can for food and listen to your buddy plead for help while you watch a buddy bleed to death as his life ends. Believe me these visions still haunt me.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22-04-05, 11:08
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony Smith
Bartek, see the thread Sherman M4A2 diesel engine designation
I don't denied that Sherman had got a diesel engine.Now I know it had,but I was intersted if it was a serial production or only prototypes,that's all.More important for me was fact that polish tank 7 TP was less flammable than its germany opponents from 1939.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22-04-05, 16:12
Tony Smith's Avatar
Tony Smith Tony Smith is offline
No1, Mk 2** (I'm back!)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lithgow, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,042
Default

Bartek, I was thinking that the pictures of the Sherman power unit in that thread comprised of 5 Chrysler engines might interest you. .
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22-04-05, 17:13
Vets Dottir
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: war in Poland 1939

.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22-04-05, 18:52
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony Smith
Bartek, I was thinking that the pictures of the Sherman power unit in that thread comprised of 5 Chrysler engines might interest you. .
Yes,why not?I know only that it was such kind of engine/engines For the first time I was sure that author of that news was joking.The engineers who projected that machine ought to be genius or idiots,I don't know

Last edited by Bartek; 22-04-05 at 20:43.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 22-04-05, 20:50
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony Smith
Bartek, I was thinking that the pictures of the Sherman power unit in that thread comprised of 5 Chrysler engines might interest you. .
I've checked the link.Nice and interesting
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 23-04-05, 11:07
TColvin TColvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 31
Default

I agree that all these were myths.

What seems to be true, however, is that Poland understood Britain and France would attack Germany. Therefore the Polish armed forces fought a delaying action to give the Anglo-French forces time to get their shit together. The attacks could have been directly into Germany across the Maginot Line by the Anglo-French armies and/or by the Royal Navy breaking into the Baltic.

Instead the Anglo-French forces did next to nothing, and failed even to study the German technique in order to prepare themselves for the onslaught in 1940.

The country that suffered the worst in WWII was without any doubt Poland, and many Brits, including myself, continue to be conscious-stricken about it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 24-04-05, 11:19
Richard Notton
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TColvin
I agree that all these were myths.

What seems to be true, however, is that Poland understood Britain and France would attack Germany. Therefore the Polish armed forces fought a delaying action to give the Anglo-French forces time to get their shit together. The attacks could have been directly into Germany across the Maginot Line by the Anglo-French armies and/or by the Royal Navy breaking into the Baltic.

Instead the Anglo-French forces did next to nothing, and failed even to study the German technique in order to prepare themselves for the onslaught in 1940.
I disagree.

You have to put your 1939 head on, not your 2005 head.

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating, that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared, at once, to withdraw their troops from Poland a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that consequently this country is at war with Germany."

Its like today's sanctions you have heard so much about in various situations that do very little, in 1939 most Brits would be reaching for their school atlas to see where Poland was and wondering how it even concerned us as British interests there were little more, if any, than a polite ambassadorial exchange; as for sending an effective army there with 1939 resources and logistics, a total non-starter practically and politically. Even later we only managed an "expeditionary" force of 158,000 men to France across a few miles of water.

How long did it take us now to establish effective "expeditionary" forces in the middle east recently, RO-RO ships, heavy lift jet aircraft et al?

What was Mr. Schickelgruber up to? The original intent was just the idea of Libenstraum, more living space, the re-joining/expansion of Germany as it was and some redressment for the humiliation of WWI especially against the French.

Whilst hating the Russians he cynically used them for his own ends to capture Poland and its resources, plus a bit of insurance that if the Wehrmacht didn't wholly suceed, then the Russians would and have given him half the country as agreed.

Turning to France, it seems that the intention was to envelope Belgium and just encircle the Maginot Line as a two-fingered salute to the French and a huge recoupment of national pride. At the time the French army was rated as formidable and it would have not been the plan to advance to the channel coast.

However, things seemed so easy, that thinking on the hoof, the Wehrmacht was allowed its head to carry on and indeed wholly out-run its logistic capability. The fall of France was aided by the poor command and desperate lack of comms from the top down, we should remember there was only one solitary phone line into Petain's HQ. In the one occasion when the British took direct command, Rommel's "Ghost Squadron" was nearly captured and was only saved by Rommel's direct intervention and a reversion to French command.

Barborossa wasn't even a dream at this time but I deduce Hitler was wholly seduced and misled by the apparent easy victory in France and thus turned on Russia in total misguided arrogance, but remember he de-mobilised a huge chunk of the Wehrmact after France and doubtless was oblivious or worse to the sound military counsel advising about the wisdom of attacking Russia.

I could theorise that the much vaunted and admittedly advanced German MVs were propaganda, most were designed and built well pre-war and I suspect on the aim of making a good world impression and not as a functional fighting vehicle; an area where the Russians excelled.

For example, look at the carefully structured range of half-tracks, well, three-quarter tracks accurately. You could include the Kettenkrad although this is really an airborne tractor designed to fit "Antie Ju"; however, they all have a fabulous track system with twin roller bearings per link with an integral cast oil reservoir and associated seals. Roller tipped drive sprockets with rubber track supports and off-set replaceable road pads to minimise wear through scuffing when laid on the road and of course the usual multitude of overlapping rubber tyred road wheels.

Why?

They whisper along in grandiose Berlin parades, it is inoffensive to Mr. Schickelgrubers ears and very impressive to the intelligence gatherers. You certainly can't hear Kevin Wheatcroft's 18 ton Famo coming as I well know.

We copied one and gave up; the OT-810 copied the Sd.Kfz.251 but with dry steel track.

Then there is the whole gamut of over-complicated and over-designed vehicles almost certainly not intended for battlefield duty, motor bikes and sidecars with selectable two wheel drive and reverse gear; 4 wheel steer small field cars? Hmmmmm.

Not seen on parade but similarly a pre-war design is the two man pulled infantry trailer, a nightmare of bent and angle welded tubing to carry a sheet steel box with coil springs and hydraulic dampers; comes complete with quickly detachable pop-off wheels and special straps to allow four men to carry it over fences and ditches; designed for war? I think not. Admittedly it did get simplified later, but not a lot.

Certainly Poland suffered very badly but to assume the British declaration of war on Germany was anything more at the time than severe posturing is a mistake, Hitler wasn't entirely mad then and would know full well that there wasn't a hope in hell that any effective counter-measure could be mounted in the time-scale, plus, it would have possibly set us off against the Russians by the same token. Win-win.

It would seem that politically and technically Germany had no intention of fighting a prolonged campaign, even the Blitskrieg technique was a very short-term action.

Leaving aside the moralistic questions and taking an entirely detached view, as policy to expand Germany and its resources which it was desperately short of, then the actions to capture half of Poland, re-join the Sudetenland and encompass the Maginot Line were well founded and their military had a sufficiency to achieve this.

The British declaration of war was a bit of a surprise and wholly unexpected as it made no sense in respect of Poland. Had it stopped there of course we could hypothesise that things would have been very different indeed.

R.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 24-04-05, 12:26
Stellan Bojerud (RIP)'s Avatar
Stellan Bojerud (RIP) Stellan Bojerud (RIP) is offline
RIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 686
Default Poland 1939

Yes, in 1939 there wasnīt much Britain could do for Poland - but the French could and had promised to launch an attack on Germany within 14 days from outbreak of war.

Halftracks - ok. In 1939 the German armoured forces only had one (1) Company equipped wich such vehicles and that Coy served in 1st Panzer Division.
__________________
Foxhole sends
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 24-04-05, 15:11
John McGillivray's Avatar
John McGillivray John McGillivray is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Quebec
Posts: 1,089
Default 1938 Munich coup plot

There also was a plot to overthrow Hitler by coup in Munich in 1938. The details are given on the link below. However, Chamberlain’s appearance in Munich to talk “peace” with Hitler threw a spanner into the works, and saved Hitler’s government.

http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/September-1938.htm
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 24-04-05, 16:22
Crewman's Avatar
Crewman Crewman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 210
Default

Hello Friends,

Quote:
Originally posted by TColvin
I agree that all these were myths.

What seems to be true, however, is that Poland understood Britain and France would attack Germany. Therefore the Polish armed forces fought a delaying action to give the Anglo-French forces time to get their shit together. The attacks could have been directly into Germany across the Maginot Line by the Anglo-French armies and/or by the Royal Navy breaking into the Baltic.

Instead the Anglo-French forces did next to nothing, and failed even to study the German technique in order to prepare themselves for the onslaught in 1940.

The country that suffered the worst in WWII was without any doubt Poland, and many Brits, including myself, continue to be conscious-stricken about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by FV623
It would seem that politically and technically Germany had no intention of fighting a prolonged campaign, even the Blitskrieg technique was a very short-term action.
Quote:
Originally posted by Stellan Bojerud
Yes, in 1939 there wasnīt much Britain could do for Poland - but the French could and had promised to launch an attack on Germany within 14 days from outbreak of war.
I think that we entered very interesting area of discussion where it is possible to tell that altogether are right. Let's look at the Falklands War case study. So modern, so well-equipped, so well-organized, so well-trained, so well-prepared for the international interventions the British Armed Forces needed then long weeks to organize themselves and to prepare their future battlefield in both combat and logistics aspects. Argentina attacked on April 2nd and the British Forces were ready to response after a month. I think that with such the Army the UK had in 1939 British Forces would not be ready to prepare their logistics and combat components to intervene successfully in Poland in October 1939.

Best regards

C.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 24-04-05, 19:24
Norm Cromie (RIP) Norm Cromie (RIP) is offline
48th Highlander
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S. Calif.USA
Posts: 182
Default War in Poland 1939

FV 623

Sir: hindsight, hindsight, hindsight. If If If I am always amazed at the exceptional knowledge that many of you chaps on MLU have regarding history and equipment of the WW2. But, May I say, tongue in cheek; the one common denominator for many great screw-ups is man. Example, Hitler’s failure to push on to Dunkirk in May of 1940. Churchill's fiasco with the use of Australian troops in his conflict with the Turk’s in WW1. Japan's misguided attack on Pearl Harbor. By whom I am not sure but it had to be a supreme command order. Stalin's massacre of the Ukrainian officer corp. All these unfortunate errors in judgment and God know there are many more that I could site. You must surely accept that there is some divine or unexplainable dimension that occurs all through history. I would be interested in anyone who could convince me, that war is not a precise behavior of evolution.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 24-04-05, 19:51
Mark W. Tonner's Avatar
Mark W. Tonner Mark W. Tonner is offline
Senior Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 3,027
Post Re: War in Poland 1939

Quote:
Originally posted by Norm Cromie
Stalin's massacre of the Ukrainian officer corp.
Hi Norm;

I think you mean "Stalin's massacre of the Polish officer corp" (Katyn Wood).

Cheers
__________________
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 25-04-05, 02:18
Norm Cromie (RIP) Norm Cromie (RIP) is offline
48th Highlander
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S. Calif.USA
Posts: 182
Default war in Poland 1939

Yes Mark you are correct. Stalin did massacre the Polish Officer Corp. but I (and I may be wrong) but I believe he also did a similar dastardly deed with the Ukeranian Officer Corp. This may have been sometime after WW2 though. You will have to forgive an old man of 84 if I have some memory lapses. I believe with the act of some of these Political and Military God Kings that there is an unknown underlying reason of which we have no control, another example Lord Louie's insistance on the Dieppe raid after its early exposure to the Germans.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 25-04-05, 08:05
Richard Notton
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: war in Poland 1939

Quote:
Originally posted by Norm Cromie
Yes Mark you are correct. Stalin did massacre the Polish Officer Corp. but I (and I may be wrong) but I believe he also did a similar dastardly deed with the Ukeranian Officer Corp.
A couple of years ago our rather high-brow and well educated presenter Melvyn Bragg http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth237 quizzed a panel of recognised world historians and university dons on our revered Home Service (Radio 4).

The question was indeed who was the worst out of Joe Stalin and Mr. Schickelgruber. After some interesting and illuminating discussion the clear winner was. . . . . . . . . .Joe Stalin, especially that we don't know the full limits of his terrible actions.


Quote:
another example Lord Louie's insistance on the Dieppe raid after its early exposure to the Germans.
Please don't get me started about L.L. Mountbatten (formerly Battenburg) first thing on a Monday morning

R.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 25-04-05, 20:13
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default Re: Poland 1939

Quote:
Originally posted by Stellan Bojerud
Yes, in 1939 there wasnīt much Britain could do for Poland - but the French could and had promised to launch an attack on Germany within 14 days from outbreak of war.

Sometimes I think that British and French promises were only to block the potential alliance of Poland and Germany.Let us imagine something like that: Poland&Germany signed up Friendship Treaty, made some small,only cosmeticall corrections of borders,some new rights and duties for national minorities and ...III Reich attacked France at October 1939,in that case germany would been protected from the risk of soviet assault by Poland.Strange but possible I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 29-04-05, 11:02
TColvin TColvin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 31
Default

FV623 wrote; 'I disagree. You have to put your 1939 head on, not your 2005 head.'


Let's do that.
France had promised Poland military aid. They made a small demonstration over the Maginot Line. The Phoney War followed until Hitler attacked in the west.
Donitz was told by Hitler to establish his HQ at Swinemunde and deploy his U-Boats in the Baltic to prevent the escape of Polish destroyers. However, Hitler said, if Britain and France declared war, then Donitz should move to Wilhelmshaven and begin action against Britain. Only a few coastal U-Boats tried to intercept the Polish destroyers which got away to Britain.
French ships were left untouched. Donitz protested that neutral shipping was being sunk in the exclusion zone, but French shipping was immune. Hitler believed for a while that the French might not have their heart in the war and therefore did nothing against French shipping.
In 1914 Britain honoured its commitment to protect Belgian neutrality and despatched the BEF, which engaged the Germans at Mons to the derision of the Kaiser who called them contemptible.
In 1939 the British government had a reputation for keeping its word and its commitments. The PM was not a liar like Blair.
Poland rightly expected assistance, and acted accordingly. They were deceived. That was very 2005 but not 1939.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 29-04-05, 12:36
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

The main problem is that british and french promises helped Hitler at war in 1939.Polish army was prepared for delaying actions at whole borders(a thin line nearly 800 km long!),but not for the defense war.Polish IDs were waiting at positions close to german border,after tanks broke polish lines ,polish troops were unable to withdraw and prepared a new defense lines deeper in polish territory.Whole Europe,England and France ought to see that is not the next anschluss ,but a serious war,that's why from first steps on polish land Germans should been under fire of defenders,but it also mean that defenders should be everywhere.

Last edited by Bartek; 29-04-05 at 15:39.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 29-05-05, 13:29
Jacek Jacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 27
Default

Hello Forum members here!
Stellan did a terrific job. I didnīt know so many details about THAT September.

As Iīm new here at MLU, Iīll introduce myself in a few words: I am a guy from Warszawa but live in Denmark. I am mainly interested in international politics in XX century. My knowledge of WW2 is fragmentary - Iīm here mainly in order to learn from YOU. I hope youīll not consider me a parasite.

What Iīd like to say here first is: IMO the Polish diplomacy should have done a better job in Paris and London, exploring the real possibilities of quick help in case of war. The pact with USSR of Aug 23rd should have made people think of the possibility of joint action of Germany and USSR in Poland, too. Tactics and strategy should have been adjusted on the basis of their findings and facts.
AFAIK, none of this was done. WHY, do you think?

The other thing: IMO it was a mistake to declare Warsaw a stronghold, even if there was a shade of a chance of real help from the allies. This set a precedent: Polish lives and property was from this moment on, sort of, cheaper.
Warsaw was not any stronghold but a normal, European city, an as such - open. I know, youīll say: Poland was young as a state, extremely patriotic etc. but still...

Conc. the diesel tanks: they were in some respect better and, afaik, a little less prone to burn, butthey did burn: who hasnīt seen tonnes of pictures of burning Soviet diesel tanks?

Regards,
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 30-05-05, 02:28
wayne c. petrie wayne c. petrie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St.Catharines,Ont.
Posts: 64
Default false myths

Jacek
Welcome to the forum.Please do not consider yourself as a parasite.I joined this forum to learn also.
I can not answer your questions, but there are MANY LEARNED people on this site that can.
The people here are from a lot of different nations and ethnic backgrounds.They offer ,not only facts,but a different insight on the subjects in question.Most replies are unbaised and are based on facts, as far as they can determine.Many members on this forum will go out of thier way to provide a proper responce to your post.
Ask as many questions as you like on this forum.You can not find a better site to have them answered.
Good luck.

Wayne
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 30-05-05, 12:24
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Hi Jacek!
About Polish Defence War 1939,we can talk without endThe main problem of Poland at 1939 were not army and equipment,but polish Government and General Staff.Much more important for me was that Stellan pointed that polish equipment wasn't been so ancient as "western" people think,polish soldiers and officers weren't been so unproffecional ,polish tactics weren't like :"Aztecs against Cortez"(some snivel wrote that bullshit at the other forum).Poland lost that war mostly by stupid politians decisions at 1938,during Munich,and stupid strategy prepared by Rydz-Smigly,not only during the war,but before at plans of development of polish army,for example for polish fleet were been bought 4 destroyers , 1 minelayer and 4 oceanic submarines.At 1939 that ships could only escape to Great Brittain or Sweden ,one polish historicians called that situation :"...shark at the lake".I don't know how many tanks 7TP could be build or how many Hurricanes could be buy for the same money,but even I count only 50 tanks for a destroyer or 25 planes ,it changes polish force very serious,no matter against Germans or Russians.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 30-05-05, 13:18
Stellan Bojerud (RIP)'s Avatar
Stellan Bojerud (RIP) Stellan Bojerud (RIP) is offline
RIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 686
Default Polish Navy

Hello,

I do agree. For what purpose was Poland building a Navy? Shallow water, no good base areas, relatively short shoreline. That could easier be defended by Coast Artillery.

The 1936 Polish Navy Plan was absurd:

3 Battleships
1 Aircraft Carrier
12 destroyers
21 submarines

In addition to the destroyers mentioned by Bartek - ORP Wicher (1928), ORP Burza (1929), ORP Blyskawica (1936) and ORP Grom (1936) - there were also two of 2.000 tons laid down in Gdynia for delivery in 1941.

In fact there were five submarines: ORP Rys (1929), ORP Wilk (1929), ORP Zbik (1931), ORP Orzel (1938) and ORP Sep (1938).

Of these Rys, Sep and Zbik were interned in Sweden Sept 1939.

Picture: ORP Sep arriving in Waxholm, Sweden, Sept 1939.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Foxhole sends
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 30-05-05, 15:40
Jacek Jacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 27
Default

Thank you guys for the warm welcome! I appreciate.

You are certainly right that oceangoing subs and destroyers and what we had of plans for battleships was a little bit weird.

I remember an issue of a long forgotten magazine "Liga Morska i Kolonialna"- mostly wishful thinking about obtaining some colonies.
I donīt know - it was sort of obsession to become a naval power. Or....who knows? Money under the table?

Anyways, the navy was a mess.
The AT rifles were there, but due to secrecy, they were issued too late and not many knew how to use them properly.
More glaring mistakes? Stellan?

What was exactly wrong with Polish HQs and military?
I had always a feeling that the Army was too poor because the country was new and poor. Add to it the Polish temperament and you are well underway towards a catastrophe.

Even if the country hadnt bought or built the ships it had, would it have been able to built enough tanks, prepare tank crews, read and understand Liddel Hart or whoever wrote about modern warfare?
Germany was preparing for war for years - remember the school for German tank crews and pilots on USSR? That was even before Hitler.

And USSR itself: I canīt remember how many tanks and planes they had in 1939, but it was much, much more than Germany. They began their
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 30-05-05, 15:40
Jacek Jacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 27
Default

Thank you guys for the warm welcome! I appreciate.

You are certainly right that oceangoing subs and destroyers and what we had of plans for battleships was a little bit weird.

I remember an issue of a long forgotten magazine "Liga Morska i Kolonialna"- mostly wishful thinking about obtaining some colonies.
I donīt know - it was sort of obsession to become a naval power. Or....who knows? Money under the table?

Anyways, the navy was a mess.
The AT rifles were there, but due to secrecy, they were issued too late and not many knew how to use them properly.
More glaring mistakes? Stellan?

What was exactly wrong with Polish HQs and military?
I had always a feeling that the Army was too poor because the country was new and poor. Add to it the Polish temperament and you are well underway towards a catastrophe.

Even if the country hadnt bought or built the ships it had, would it have been able to built enough tanks, prepare tank crews, read and understand Liddel Hart or whoever wrote about modern warfare?
Germany was preparing for war for years - remember the school for German tank crews and pilots on USSR? That was even before Hitler.

And USSR itself: I canīt remember how many tanks and planes they had in 1939, but it was much, much more than Germany. They began their war preparations in late twenties.
One can laugh at the debacle in Finland;
I had some discusions with Finns about their Mannerheim line: they underestimate it , imo. The Soviet breakthrough was a real achievement, not to be ashamed of. They were able to break a heavily fortified area with awful natural obstacles as part of the system, in minus 30-35 gr. Celcius. Smething nobody had done before. A costly victory - yes, but an invaluable school for the future conquests.

So, it was not a cripple who was stabbing Poland in its back.
The Soviets have been buying complete factories in the US: Staligrad, Charkov, Chelabinsk - was it from Ford?
__________________
a Polish boychik
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 30-05-05, 16:11
Bartek Bartek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Poland wasn't been able to fight against allied III Reich and Russia,but maybe without that stupid program of building fleet,polish land and air forces would be strong enough to defend country against one of them.
Next problem :maybe if polish Government during the Munich'38 promised the military help for Czechslovakia ,Czechs would not surrended so easy.At 1938 Czechs got 600 tanks,Poland more/less 700 together 1200-1300,how many tanks had Adolf at that time 1500?The same situation was about planes.
Next: Germans colud attack Czechoslovakia only from : at North from Silesia through the Moravian Gate from Ratibor and at South through Brno from Vienna,the northern direction could be very easy blocked by polish forces from Czestochowa and Upper Silesia direction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016