How did Poland hold out longer than France.
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
May 28 - Belgium surrenders to Germany
Until 16.05.1940 combats were only fought on Belgian and Dutch territory (with participation of French and British troops but still only there).
So only after seven days Germans even entered French territory.
And 42 - 6 = 36; France was conquered in 36 days too.
Not true, armies of both countries fought quite well not only in 1939 / 1940 but also later (for example in Italy in 1944).
Performance of US Army in WW2 was pretty crappy considering the resources they had available, read this thread:
"On German and Allied combat effectiveness" - some very interesting posts available here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=166050&start=0#p1466157
For example from user Guaporense, who was banned for posting these facts on some history forum of American WW2 veterans.
Until 16.05.1940 combats were only fought on Belgian and Dutch territory (with participation of French and British troops but still only there).
So only after seven days Germans even entered French territory.
And 42 - 6 = 36; France was conquered in 36 days too.
Not true, armies of both countries fought quite well not only in 1939 / 1940 but also later (for example in Italy in 1944).
Performance of US Army in WW2 was pretty crappy considering the resources they had available, read this thread:
"On German and Allied combat effectiveness" - some very interesting posts available here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=166050&start=0#p1466157
For example from user Guaporense, who was banned for posting these facts on some history forum of American WW2 veterans.
Figthing in Belgium involved French troops, so they count too.
And the Sedan breakthrough started earlier.
Situation the 16 of may : you can see the German army is already in France.
I never understand why the Poles insist that Poland lasted longer than France. Simple dates prove the opposite and cannot be denied.
Now, if you want you could argue Poland fought better than France, this could be opened to discussion, but dates??
And the Sedan breakthrough started earlier.
Situation the 16 of may : you can see the German army is already in France.
Spoiler :
I never understand why the Poles insist that Poland lasted longer than France. Simple dates prove the opposite and cannot be denied.
Now, if you want you could argue Poland fought better than France, this could be opened to discussion, but dates??
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Yeah, I don't deny that French troops fought in Belgium.
They even fought in the Netherlands but not many of them.
Ok, but Sedan is just at the Franco-Belgian border.
That's exactly what I wrote.
On May 16 they entered French territory - on May 15 they were still not there (but I may be wrong).
From May 10 to May 15 you have 6 days.
On day 7th Germans entered France.
I never insisted that and don't argue about dates.
But you cannot compare situation of Poland and France - Polish geo-political situation was much worse.
Poland was attacked from 3 sides and on 17.09.1939 from the last side by the Soviets. Since the start of war it was encircled.
France was attacked only along a short frontline in the north-western edge of the country. French frontline was much easier to defend than Polish frontline. Of course French defence was weaker in the Ardennes, I know this. But still they had much large forces available on a much shorter frontline.
Poland also didn't have anything as powerful as the Maginot Line. Most Polish fortifications were not finished yet on 01.09.1939.
The attack on Sedan started the 13. Even if the German did not break that day, but the 14, it's still an attack on France.
The map above is the result the 16. The German were not magically teleported by the Enterprise there.
You can claim that Poland fought better under harder conditions if you want, but you cannot claim they fought longer.
The map above is the result the 16. The German were not magically teleported by the Enterprise there.
You can claim that Poland fought better under harder conditions if you want, but you cannot claim they fought longer.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Ok so on the 13th of May Germans approached the Franco-Belgian border at Sedan.
Yes, the breakthrough was achieved on 14th of May.
Hard to say which army fought better. In both cases high commands screwed up, low-ranking commanders and many units fought very well.
I would say Poland fought better than France and all of her allies in May (Fall Gelb). Because in May Germans didn't really have any great advantage over French forces (and their allies), and yet French, Belgian, Dutch and British forces were quickly defeated, but not as easily for the Germans as often presented.
But in June (Fall Rot) Franco-British-Polish forces were vastly outnumbered, just like Poland in 1939, and fought very well but stood really no chance against so overwhelming German superiority. Fall Rot was ended quickly but consisted of some very fierce and violent fightings on the Weygand Line.
Anyway - out of British, Belgian, Dutch and French forces in 1940, it was probably the French who performed best.
But the French also had the strongest army out of these four forces.
One thing which took place in Poland was not repeated on such scale in France - the Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura. The French nor the British never managed to organize a counterattack on that scale, as far as I know. Despite having much more resources to conduct counterattacks.
And although Bzura was in the end lost by the Poles, it was involving 1/3 of entire German army in Poland and most of their airforce for almost 2 weeks.
Another thing is that to crush Poland Germans needed to expend as much ammunition as to crush France.
But In Poland they were probably not taking care of how much ammunition they were expending, in France (after experiences from Poland - very large consumption of ammo, much bigger than all expectations) - they probably started to do so.
Both campaigns cost the Germans more ammo than American forces expended in the Rykyus Campaign (including Okinawa) which lasted for 3 months.
I have data on ammunition consumption in all these campaigns in number of tons as well as in number of rounds of each type.
Yes, the breakthrough was achieved on 14th of May.
Hard to say which army fought better. In both cases high commands screwed up, low-ranking commanders and many units fought very well.
I would say Poland fought better than France and all of her allies in May (Fall Gelb). Because in May Germans didn't really have any great advantage over French forces (and their allies), and yet French, Belgian, Dutch and British forces were quickly defeated, but not as easily for the Germans as often presented.
But in June (Fall Rot) Franco-British-Polish forces were vastly outnumbered, just like Poland in 1939, and fought very well but stood really no chance against so overwhelming German superiority. Fall Rot was ended quickly but consisted of some very fierce and violent fightings on the Weygand Line.
Anyway - out of British, Belgian, Dutch and French forces in 1940, it was probably the French who performed best.
But the French also had the strongest army out of these four forces.
One thing which took place in Poland was not repeated on such scale in France - the Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura. The French nor the British never managed to organize a counterattack on that scale, as far as I know. Despite having much more resources to conduct counterattacks.
And although Bzura was in the end lost by the Poles, it was involving 1/3 of entire German army in Poland and most of their airforce for almost 2 weeks.
Another thing is that to crush Poland Germans needed to expend as much ammunition as to crush France.
But In Poland they were probably not taking care of how much ammunition they were expending, in France (after experiences from Poland - very large consumption of ammo, much bigger than all expectations) - they probably started to do so.
Both campaigns cost the Germans more ammo than American forces expended in the Rykyus Campaign (including Okinawa) which lasted for 3 months.
I have data on ammunition consumption in all these campaigns in number of tons as well as in number of rounds of each type.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
By the way - coming back to this issue for a moment:
I don't want to dissapoint our American forum colleagues, but only some elite units of their army really fought eagerly and with desire of combat in WW2.
The rest - not really.
American General of Airborne Troops - James M. Gavin - wrote about US infantry, artillery and Air Force (he was writing about more or less that period when the Americans were not able to break through the Siegfried Line and to capture the Hurtgen Forest or anything else):
"If our infantry would fight, this war would be over by now. On our present front, there are two very weak German regiments holding the XVIII Corps of four divisions. We all know it and admit it, and yet nothing is done about it. American infantry just simply will not fight. No one wants to get killed... Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps not bad. But the regular infantry - terrible. Everybody wants to live to a ripe old age. The sight of a few Germans drives them to their holes. Instead of being imbued with an overwhelming desire to get close to the German and get him by the throat, they want to avoid him if the artillery has not already knocked him flat."
Source: "Armageddon. The battle for Germany 1944-45", Max Hastings, page 267
This situation on the US-German front in that period (we can call it "The 2nd Phoney War") is well portrayed in the excellent movie "Kelly's Heroes":
Kelly's Heroes Part 1
Not true, armies of both countries fought quite well not only in 1939 / 1940 but also later (for example in Italy in 1944).
Performance of US Army in WW2 was pretty crappy considering the resources they had available, read this thread:
"On German and Allied combat effectiveness" - some very interesting posts available here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=166050&start=0#p1466157
For example from user Guaporense, who was banned for posting these facts on some history forum of American WW2 veterans.
I don't want to dissapoint our American forum colleagues, but only some elite units of their army really fought eagerly and with desire of combat in WW2.
The rest - not really.
American General of Airborne Troops - James M. Gavin - wrote about US infantry, artillery and Air Force (he was writing about more or less that period when the Americans were not able to break through the Siegfried Line and to capture the Hurtgen Forest or anything else):
"If our infantry would fight, this war would be over by now. On our present front, there are two very weak German regiments holding the XVIII Corps of four divisions. We all know it and admit it, and yet nothing is done about it. American infantry just simply will not fight. No one wants to get killed... Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps not bad. But the regular infantry - terrible. Everybody wants to live to a ripe old age. The sight of a few Germans drives them to their holes. Instead of being imbued with an overwhelming desire to get close to the German and get him by the throat, they want to avoid him if the artillery has not already knocked him flat."
Source: "Armageddon. The battle for Germany 1944-45", Max Hastings, page 267
This situation on the US-German front in that period (we can call it "The 2nd Phoney War") is well portrayed in the excellent movie "Kelly's Heroes":
Kelly's Heroes Part 1
cubsfan6506
Got u
Lol i make some dumb thread three years ago when i was more ignorant about history and people are still arguing about it.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Renner
Warlord
That is 100% win.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Two videos about Voytek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIg1pZgMGRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynz2QBeb5Ok
Detailed map of the area of operations of the Polish II Corps in the Cassino - Piedimonte region:
"Battle of Monte Cassino, Plan of artillery fires, Cassino - Piedimonte" (red colour):
http://www.mapywig.org/m/OTHER_WIG_...-PIEDIMONTE_WYDANIE_SPECJALNE_1945_300dpi.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIg1pZgMGRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynz2QBeb5Ok
Detailed map of the area of operations of the Polish II Corps in the Cassino - Piedimonte region:
"Battle of Monte Cassino, Plan of artillery fires, Cassino - Piedimonte" (red colour):
http://www.mapywig.org/m/OTHER_WIG_...-PIEDIMONTE_WYDANIE_SPECJALNE_1945_300dpi.jpg
Zardnaar
Deity
Voytek wanted to fight, the French wanted to surender and collaborate with the Nazi's
Voytek wanted to fight, the French wanted to surender and collaborate with the Nazi's
And smoke and drink, lets not talk about what he did to get that spy to talk either.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Voytek?
If he was Polish, his name was Wojtek.
If he was Polish, his name was Wojtek.
Good job at RTFA.
trader/warrior
Deity
Just sayin'. Norway lasted much longer than both France and Poland in WW2 so clearly we were the bravest and the least raped.
Now don't you come up with silly objections like they had to cross an ocean to get at us or that they had to trudge through the mountains of one of the worlds longest countries to pursue us.
How long you last in a war is all down to the skill and bravery of the defenders otherwise there wouldn't be any real point in this entire discussion.
Just sayin'
Now don't you come up with silly objections like they had to cross an ocean to get at us or that they had to trudge through the mountains of one of the worlds longest countries to pursue us.
How long you last in a war is all down to the skill and bravery of the defenders otherwise there wouldn't be any real point in this entire discussion.
Just sayin'
LightSpectra
me autem minui
China went from 1937 to 1945. Seems like Sinonationalism is the most logical option here.
Similar threads
