History questions not worth their own thread IV

No, it's a Wehrmacht soldier wearing stuff stolen from some museum, apparently.

Or member of a German heavy cavalry WW2 unit.

 

ahh , then let me assume , without any particular reason or right to do so , that he is bragging off of their splendid brave new army , of planes and panzers and its effect on not so fortunate . Though it is early for the last laugh , the splendid German smiles disappeared when they learned the enemy could have Stukas ( dive bombers , not Ju-87s per se ) as well . The F4U , in the full up version , could lift approximately 4 times the payload of a Ju-87B , though the Wehrmacht was spared much of it , even the plankwing P-47 .

 

That never happened - it´s a Nazi myth. Actually, the Poles had their own armoured vehicles (as much ´tank´ as a Panzer I was).

 

It was a joke.

 

taken over the coals for not reminding the Glorious Tenth of May , at somewhere else . Just a little spam to avoid it happening again .

Spoiler :

"kill them all" is not the Occidentalist way , it quickly leads to becoming what you start despising : Orientalist , such a dirty word . It would only involve a little talk about on how there is a slightly perceptible chance that the other foot might be in the boot .

 

Stuka attack Polish movie scene:


Link to video.

And let's add that almost every army of WW2 used cavalry, not just Polish.

And Poland didn't even have the largest cavalry force - the Soviet Union had the biggest cavalry force in WW2.

France also had more cavalry in 1940, than Poland had in 1939.

Germany:

Size of German cavalry force:

1939 - 1 cavalry brigade
1940 - 1 cavalry division (that 1 brigade was expanded into division)
1941 - 2 cavalry divisions
1943 - 3 cavalry divisions
1944 - 6 cavalry divisions

France:

1940 - French army has 5 cavalry divisions and 3 independent cavalry brigades
1941 - Vichy France has 7 cavalry regiments

England:

1941 - Chesters Yeomanry regiment of 5th Cavalry Brigade (3 regimental) fights in the Middle East
1942 - British recon cavalry units carry out the last mounted charge in British history, in Burma

USA:

1941-1942 - 26th cavalry regiment fights in the Philippines Campaign (destroyed at Baatan)

Finland:

1939-1940 - a cavalry brigade (2 regimental) fights in the Winter War

Greece:

1941 - Greek army has 1 cavalry division and 1 cavalry brigade

Italy:

1939-1943 - Italian army has 13 cavalry regiments which are parts of 3 divisions

Japan:

1939 - Japan has 4 cavalry brigades

Yugoslavia:

1941 - Yugoslavian army has 1 cavalry division

Norway:

1940 - Norwegian army has 3 cavalry regiments

Romania:

Romanian army has 6 cavalry brigades later expanded to divisions (in total 26 cavalry regiments)

Hungary:

1941 - Hungarian army has 2 cavalry brigades, later merged into 1 Royal cavalry division

USSR:

The largest cavalry power in the world throughout entire WW2.

For example in 1941 the Red Army had 25 - 30 cavalry divisions just in the European part of the USSR.

And for example in the Invasion of Poland in 1939 the Red Army used 13 cavalry divisions.

Poland:

1939 - Polish army has 11 cavalry brigades (in total 37 cavalry regiments).

===========================================

Soviet cavalrymen - photo described as taken during the battle of Kursk:



========================================

Another interesting thing is that in the Polish Campaign of 1939 there were actually 2 mounted clashes between Polish and German cavalry.

One took place in the Krolewskie Forest near Krzynowloga Mala on 01.09.1939.

And the other one took place near Krasnobrod on 23.09.1939.

Germany had only 1 cavalry brigade in 1939 (1. Kavallerie-Brigade) but each German Infantry Division had a Reconnaissance Unit - Aufklarungs-Abteilung - and each such Abteilung apart from cyclists and such, included also a cavalry (Reiter) mounted squadron.

At Krasnobrod on 23.09.1939 cavalry which fought on the German side was from one of such Aufklarungs-Abteilungs.

And at Krolewskie Forest German cavalry patrol (it was a skirmish between 2 patrols) was probably from 1. Kavallerie-Brigade.

=============================================================

And here some statistics on numbers of equipment and weaponry of German 1. Kavallerie-Brigade in 1939:

192 officers
6.492 NCOs and men
6.245 rifles
538 pistols
133 LMGs
44 HMGs
9 mortars 5cm
18 mortars 8cm
21 AT guns
- AT rifles
12 infantry guns 7,5cm
12 field howitzers 10,5cm
12 AA guns 2cm
6 armoured cars
- tankettes
205 cars (PKWs)
222 trucks (LKWs)
318 motorcycles
4.552 horses
409 horse wagons

By comparison Polish 3-regimental cavalry brigade (3) without rifle battalion*:

*In fact only 3 out of 11 cavalry brigades received rifle battalions - Wolynska (3), Nowogrodzka (4), Mazowiecka (4).

"+" = rifle battalion type A (type B was slightly different - in total Poland had 11 rifle battalions, but only 3 were attached to cavalry brigades listed above, 5 to infantry divisions, 2 to other units, 1 was independent).

205 officers + 27
4.879 NCOs and men + 1.032
4.726 rifles + 932
565 pistols + 39
60 LMGs + 29
69 HMGs + 12
- grenade launchers 50mm + 9
- mortars 81mm + 2
12 AT guns + 4
51 AT rifles + 9
- infantry guns
12 field guns 75mm
2 AA guns 40mm
8 armoured cars
13 tankettes
4 cars
64 trucks
28 motorcycles
4.983 horses + 211
559 horse wagons + 51

Out of 11 Polish cavalry brigades, 4 were 4-regimental (Kresowa, Mazowiecka, Nowogrodzka, Pomorska) and the remaining 7 were 3-regimental (Krakowska, Mazowiecka, Podlaska, Podolska, Suwalska, Wielkopolska, Wilenska, Wolynska).

Thus in total 11 cavalry brigades included 37 cavalry regiments (and artillery / support / special service units).

------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see above, German 1. Kavallerie-Brigade was larger than each of 7 Polish 3-regimental brigades.

 

As very courageous? Rather as very stupid, I would say? And as very incompatible with actual Polish military handbooks, regulations & instructions (for example with "General Instructions of Combat", Volume 2, published in 1933 and with "Cavalry Regulations", published in 1938).

Polish "Cavalry Regulations" from 1938 clearly and explicitly say that cavalry fights dismounted (during battle horses are left behind the lines and some soldiers stay with them as horsekeepers, each horsekeeper keeping several horses) and only moves to battle on horseback.

It also says that charges are forbidden, unless in specific, favourable situations & conditions or as a measure of last resort (to escape from encirclement - when speed is necessary, which can only be achieved on horseback, not on foot). And it doesn't make Polish cavalry look less courageous.

Ok, maybe for somebody this is courageous (for me rather stupid).

Even so, the story is false. And actually real stories also reflect well on the Poles and portray them as courageous.

Resisting several hundreds tanks with a few AT guns until being run over and / or killed by tanks, is also courageous (or until actually repulsing the attack of tanks - in cases when disproportion of numbers was not as huge as in this particular example).

But using AT gun or AT rifle has more sense than charging tanks.

=========================================

Cavalry in the Polish Inter-War army was a remedy for vastly insufficient motorization of the country and the army itself. It was not a direct continuation of 17th - 19th century traditions (apart from the whole "espirit de corps" thing - anthems, banners, parade uniforms, etc.).

Poland could not afford enough of motorized infantry, so it had cavalry. And actually motorization of cavalry was planned and already started (out of 40 cavalry regiments, 3 were motorized until September - and 37 remained on horsebacks). Also 1 infantry regiment was motorized.

Cavalry was not designed to charge tanks on horses, just like motorized infantry is not designed to charge tanks on motorcycles.

-----------------------------------------------------

Let's not get into this any further. I already explained it clearly enough.

 

I think the biggest thing is that it was Nazi propaganda designed to suggest they were stupid. While it's possible to change the rationalization, given the source, it's probably more preferable to just reject the story.

Although there is an interesting example of retconning an essentially bigoted story and turning it into something good. This is a bit out of left field, so bear with me.

The story of the founding of Carthage is that they made an agreement with the locals to buy as much land as would fit under the hide of an ox. Then they cut the hide into very thin strips to form an outline of a much larger land area. This story was originally designed to exemplify "Fides Punica" that all Carthaginians were deceptive and treacherous and would stab you in the back when you weren't looking. However, in the Aeneid, Virgil actually turned this on its head by portraying Dido extremely sympathetically. For him, it was a story of Carthaginian ingenuity and cleverness. Rather than treachery, it put them in the same category as Odysseus and his Trojan Horse.

 

And actually Soviet propaganda as well:

Red Army soldier from Soviet 7th Cavalry Division (ironically) under command of F. S. Komkov wrote about the battle of Wilno:

"Propaganda of Rydz-Smigly was announcing in the Polish army, that Soviet T-26 tanks are made of plywood. That's why during the battle of Wilno Polish uhlans attacked a T-26 tank with sabers, but after a moment only handles of blades left in their hands - it turned out that the tank is armoured"

- soldier I. S. Grib from Soviet 7th Cavalry Division.

But not a single unit of Polish cavalry took part in the defence of Wilno in 1939. There was one battalion formed in the OZ (Spare Unit - where excess soldiers gathered) of Wilenska Cavalry Brigade, but this was an infantry battalion (it didn't even have any horses). Moreover, this battalion probably retreated behind the border to Lithuania, and was interned there, before the battle even beginned (like most of Polish units in this area).

Moreover, I wonder when did I. S. Grib write his account. It is quoted by Vladimir Beshanov in his book "Krasnyj Blickrig" on page 76 (Beshanov adds his comment: "Of course, this story looks like a soldier's fairy tale. The main role in the defence of Wilno was not played by uhlans"), but he doesn't quote his exact source. In some other cases when he quotes Soviet accounts, he writes that some of them were written even as late as after the death of Stalin.

So anyway Germans were the first ones to invent this story.

 

Yeah, thanks for giving it new life there. Way to go.

 

ı personally find it only proper that Guderin is reported to have lost 70 tanks to the Russian Cavalry while retreating from Moscow . As for the penetrable tanks , it probably starts with Germans between the wars , where their cars dressed up to represent panzers were vulnerable to curious enemy troops armed with bayonets and umpires with pencils . The last reportedly checking whether the panzertruppen were taking advantage of their seclusion to sleep during combat exercises .

the effect was also in use in France , we have vague things on how Senegalese troops were actually told that panzers ahead they were charge were all dummies .

 

Peacetime strength of Soviet cavalry division in 1938:

5900 soldiers
5515 horses
145 LMGs
64 HMGs
12 AA MGs
36 artillery guns
40 tanks
20 armored cars
136 cars & trucks

3rd Guard Cavalry Corps / 8th Cavalry Corps / 4th Cavalry Corps in November 1942 (Stalingrad):

Soldiers: 22512 / 16134 / 10284
Horses: 18057 / 14908 / 9284
Rifles: 14102 / 10974 / 7354
Machine pistols: 2153 / 1369 / 566
LMGs: 374 / 366 / 264
HMGs 12,7mm: 40 / 33 / —
AT rifles: 388 / 188 / 140
76,2mm artillery guns: 70 / 66 / 32
45mm AT guns: 55 / 35 / 24
37mm AA guns: 21 / 6 / 8
120mm & 107mm mortars: 44 / 37 / 16
82mm mortars: 108 / 66 / 46
50mm mortars: 294 / 123 / 118

Each of these Corps consisted of 3 (3rd Guard & 8th) or 2 (4th) cavalry divisions + support units.

 

I didn't expect my off-hand comment would generate this much posting.

 

You insulted Polish honour, in a thread that already had Poles in it. Prepare for the word-vomit.

 

not much need for the ORBATs , Germans kinda deserved their reverse in front of Moscow for thinking they could always do it , it being the defeat of unprepared enemy forces . Poland could have utterly wiped out Wehrmacht in September 1939 , had it been able to field an equivalent force , since France and England would have been far "braver" in engaging the Germans . But this is a wrong proposition as well , since the Germans would have most properly hung Hitler and his cronies , when he attempted to start it all with the Czechs ; so that the Germans would be led to fight such odds . They did in 1944-45 , only because they had to .

 

"If the Poles had had an army that was capable of beating the Wehrmacht, they could have beaten the Wehrmacht"?

Really going out on a limb, there, Mr. Tautologies Are Tautological.

 

let's assume , the Poles have something like the P-43 , which their PZL 50 something would have developed into given time ; in real time the single prototype was shot down by the Polish Flak as it was a low-wing monoplane like Germans flew . And in enough / comparable numbers , let's assume Germany didn't have Czechoslovakia and so many other things to ease Germans numbers down . And let's assume they had mobile armour forces that they could "operate" against German vanguards . Protected from the Stukas and capable of slugging it out with Panzers , the 37mm III and the short 75 IV . Which is not that tall an order ... Meaning Germans loose tempo and initiative . Domen will no doubt offer enough anectodes the Polish infantry could harm the Germans when the numbers were comparable . And France and the UK would have loved such a thing ; removing Germany from the equilibrium , they could push the Poles to fight the Russians afterwards .

ı can't see much risk in the proposition then . ı have always been kinda proud of a particular scenario in the old Panzer General where ı managed to defeat the 1939 operation by a combined West- East fight , it took about 13 hours to do it with all the save and reloads . ı posted it to the scenario creater and he refused to believe it that it could be done without alteration to units and all .

two paragraphs , totally different in connection to real life . The problem must be then which is which .

 

Are there other women in history with the title "the Great" then the ones that I know?
These are the ones that I found:
Catherine the Great(Russia)
Berengaria the Great(Castile)
Tamar the Great(Georgia)
Wu Zetian the Great(China)