Historical Question -- Polish troops

[Major LardLad]

Here's a question that just occured to me - where did the Polish troops fighting in the west in '44 come from?

All that I can think of is that they must have been captured by Russian forces in '39 and then handed over sometime after '41. Did I guess right?

Sortof on the same topic - how did Polish pilots reach the UK in time to fight in the Battle of Britian? Surely their planes wouldn't have had the range to fly direct?

[killmore]

Yes Polish pilots had their own squadrons in France 1940 and during battle of Britain.

In fact Polish squadron (304?) had the most kills during the Battle of britain.

There was also Polish units in 1940 in Norway at Narwick.

Poland had the 4th largest army on allied side in WWII.

(After 1:USRR, 2:USA, 3:Britain, 4:Poland)

Please tell me how much off I am since I never read any official numbers but I believe they had 200,000 in the west and 200,000 in the east fronts).

Some of the troops escaped indirectly to France in 1939 throught Romania. Some were formed in USRR in 1941 (General Anders army) and then ended up in Iran where they become part of british forces.

They don't teach most of that in Polish schools so some of my facts can be wrong.

But there were polish squadrons in France 1940 as well as infatry units. And there were troops in Norway, Narwick.

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 03-11-2000).]

[Heibis]

The polish squadron with the highest kill rate was the 303, according to Talonsoft's BoB... (should I thrust Talonsoft on this one?)

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Indeed, 303 Sqdrn. accounted for the highest enemy loss percentage during BOB (I think it was like 14%).

Polish pilots flew to neighboring countries not already conquered by the Russkies or Germans. From there they got transportation to either France or England.

Polish troops in '44 either came from Russian prison camps or they found their own way to Britain. In fact, my screen name namesake, Gen. Sosabowski, was a rifle regiment commander in the siege of Warsaw who found his own way to the UK before he commanded the 1st Independent Polish Parachute Brigade.

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Heibis]

LOL! Sosabowski, I was only waiting for your reply

[Guest Babra]

Large numbers escaped through neutral countries in '39.

Favourite 303 Sqn anecdote: The spit (hurry?) comes in, wheels up, ignoring a wave off. It belly lands nicely and slides to stop. The pilot bails and runs across the apron, waving frantically. "What the hell is the matter?" yells the CO, who has a hard time communicating with his squadron, most of whom barely speak English.

"I got TWO!" yells the Pole.

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

It's "BAB-ra!"

[This message has been edited by Babra (edited 03-11-2000).]

[Gen. Sosaboski]

ROFL!

They flew Hurricanes in BOB.

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[gaffertape]

They flew Spitfires too. Not sure which squadron he was in, but a family friend of mine, Alec Rokitniki, was one of those Poles who fought in the Battle of Britain, and he fondly remembers his plane. He did mention that he did fly for the RAF as well (not quirte sure how that worked). Currently he's in a veteran's home here near Toronto, but in great mental health I'm pleased to say.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Gaffertape,

Glad to hear you know a vet! Are you sure he was in one of THE two "Polish Squadrons" in BOB itself? Just asking because I never heard of 303 or the other one flying Spits during the Battle of Britain itself. (I am NOT questioning the guy by a long shot, just checking because all my books say Hurricanes during BOB). Glad to hear he's doing well!

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Guest Walter R. Strapps]

<snip>

Poland had the 4th largest army on allied side in WWII.

(After 1:USRR, 2:USA, 3:Britain, 4:Poland)

Please tell me how much off I am since I never read any official numbers but I believe they had 200,000 in the west and 200,000 in the east fronts).<snip>

One assumes you are making the standard error of *way* too many people that the Canadian forces count with the British. They don't. Canada had more than a million men and women fight in World War 2.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Gen. Sosaboski]

To tell you the truth Walter, I don't know how many soldiers the Poles had at each front . All I know is that they were some d**n good fighters, and some more .

Indeed, Canada is not included with the Brits in my book, nor is any other country who served under Brit supplies, etc. (ex: Poles, Aussies, New Zealanders, etc.).

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Guest Walter R. Strapps]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen. Sosaboski:

To tell you the truth Walter, I don't know how many soldiers the Poles had at each front . All I know is that they were some d**n good fighters, and some more .

Indeed, Canada is not included with the Brits in my book, nor is any other country who served under Brit supplies, etc. (ex: Poles, Aussies, New Zealanders, etc.).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Australia and NZ probably should be, as they had no control over declaring war on Germany or Japan in WW2, whereas Canada was fully independent by 1939 and did declare war on her own. Canada had the third largest navy, fourth largest airforce (this is from the Canadian Veteran's site, but that seems weird to me) and fielded an army of 6 divisions during WW2. Reports from the SS Panzer divisions in the Netherlands who faced the Canadians after D-Day said that the Canadians were the only opponents they were truly afraid of . I can't find the numbers to prove it right now, but I'm pretty sure that Canada had the fourth largest army among the allies during WW2.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[killmore]

Canada did not had 1,000,000 fighting men - soldiers during the war. (I am Canadian)

Thats is just a propaganda number. 1,000,000 number includes people engaged in production of anything war related. All farmers are probably included into this number.

This is not a number of soldiers (fighting men).

I doubt that the Brit army number included Canadians since 200,000 Polish west army was a part of British army.

Canada was suposedly second largest arm producer. (I heard this number in Canada war propaganda program). I doubt this number too. Somehow I think Soviet Union and US were producing more arms.

[Guest Walter R. Strapps]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

Canada did not had 1,000,000 fighting men - soldiers during the war. (I am Canadian)

Thats is just a propaganda number. 1,000,000 number includes people engaged in production of anything war related. All farmers are probably included into this number.

This is not a number of soldiers (fighting men).

I doubt that the Brit army number included Canadians since 200,000 Polish west army was a part of British army.

Canada was suposedly second largest arm producer. (I heard this number in Canada war propaganda program). I doubt this number too. Somehow I think Soviet Union and US were producing more arms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Fraid not, the 1 million does not include 'farmers', whether or not you're Canadian, you're wrong. For God's sake, Canada called up 700,000 in the first world war when the total population of the country was less than *half* of what it was in 1939.

I was challenging the assertion that the Polish army was the fourth largest Allied army, making it, by definition larger than the Canadian one. I don't have my books with me right here, but can you *prove* (with numbers) that the Polish army was indeed the fourth largest Allied army?

As for production numbers... I don't know. Do you have numbers though?

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[killmore]

I believe Canadian army in WW2 was smaller then in WW1.

Canadian losses were also proportionally smaller in WW2.

Do you have any numbers of soldiers? Not "Called to arms" number.

And not home guard numbers.

My problem is that I don't have any current source (book) of numbers (and neither do you). And I stated from the begining that I don't know how accurate these numbers were.

I still don't believe that Canada had 1 mil. soldiers in WW2.

Population of Canada in 1940 was about 20 milion...

More then half thats women. They were not accepted into fighting roles. That leaves 9 mil.

Children and elderly thats probably at least 5 million.

Leaves 4 million men. So theoretically it is possible that 1/4 of able men were soldiers. But I don't think it happened.

Poland had 38 million of people in 1939. So close to double that of Canada.

Asked people for some numbers... I bet that US army had to be at least 10 times larger than Canadian so if Canada had 1 million army - USA had at least 10 million.

[Major Tom]

There were 8 total Canadian divisions mobilized in WWII. 1-3 were heavy infantry divisions (assault divisions) 4-5 were armoured divisions, 6-8 were Territorial divisions defending Canada itself (of full strenght though). The 6th Division (possibly the 8th?) was slotted to partake in the attack on Japan in 1945.

Canadian casualties in WWI (from 1914 -1918) were 79 000 KIA. Pretty high Canadian deaths for such a small force (4-5 Divisions). The Canadian land armies were about equal, but, in WWI there were less rear-echelon troops than in WWII. 780 000 Canadians were in the Armed forces during WWII from a population of 11 000 000 (not 20 million!). More Canadians were mobilized per capita than Americans. (including home guard for BOTH!)

Divisions were larger in WWII than they were in WWI. So, 5 fighting divisions, plus 2 Corps troops, and Army troops, as well as independent brigades (in WWI all 5 divisions were under 1 Corps) the Canadian fighting army of WWII was larger than in WWI.

There were 42 000 Canadian Military deaths in the 5 years of WWII. But, many of these (10 000+) were in the RCAF. So, only around 30 000 KIA in the land forces. Losses don't truely represent the size of the armed forces. Canadian troops were only engaged incombat from 1943 on (not incl Dieppe). The were also not the stupid charges of massed infantry vs entrenched soldiers. 30 000 land deaths in 3 years of war vs. 79 000 land deaths in 4 years of war.

Numerically, by 1945 the French FRONTLINE army was larger than that of Canada's FRONTLINE army. The Polish had 3 Divisions and a few Brigades in the West, BUT, there was a Polish Army serving with the Russians, and the Polish Home army (got wiped out though!). Poland was probably close to that of Canada, but, definitely not larger.

Australia had 4 divisions of the AIF (6-9) with the 8th division surrendering at Malaya. There were also many Militia Infantry divisions (7 or so) Plus 3 Armoured/Mechanized/Cavalry Divisions, along with numerous brigades. The Australian army was around 680 000 men strong. More troops in the army, but, less in the airforce and navy.

I am sure that the 780 000 does NOT include armaments workers, or even contract workers. My grandfather was an aircraft engineer in Canada, and was not considered to be a part of the armed forces.

The Largest Allied military forces by 1944/45

Russia (20 Million) (during the war)

America (16 Million)

Britain (4.6 Million)

India (2.4 Million)

France (unknown by 1944, 2 Armies +others)

Canada (5 Field Divisions Multipe armoured Brigades, corps and army troops) (780 000 Armed Forces)

Australia (15 Divisions, only 4 were regular strength) (680 000 Armed Forces)

Poland (3 Divisions, 3rd and 5th Infantry and 1st Armoured Plus soviet Polish 1st army)

New Zealand (2 Divisions)

South Africa (1 Armoured division by 1944)

Canada was indeed up there, but, not 4th largest! Numerically, Canada had the 3rd largest navy (due to the French scuttling most of their fleet in 1942).

Australia should not be considered part of the British army, at least not in 1941+. They continualy disobeyed orders of deployment from London. Churchill wanted the 7th Division to go to Burma, or the Dutch East Indies, but, Curtin (Australian PM?) recalled all divisions (except the 8th) back to Australia for home defence.

The Polish army of 1939 not fully mobilized was 1 000 000 men. About 100 000 got to the west in 1939. By 1944 there were 1 142 187 Poles in arms. 380 000 were in the Home army and destroyed in 1944, 400 000 were incorporated into the German army. 194 460 were in the Western army (many were released by the Russians in 1941), 167 727 were in the Russian army. 362 187 were OFFICIALLY in the Allied armies in 1944-45. There were probably around 6-7 Polish Divisions (3 in the West, 2-3-4 in the East). But, the Polish forces did not have the same infastructure as the Canadian forces. There was the II Polish Corps, but, the Polish Armoured divisions was attached to British/Canadian commands. There was the I and II Canadian Corps along with the 1st Canadian army. Thousands of soldiers were required in these administrative and supply jobs. They might not have been fighting men, but, they were required to fight a war.

I have not included independent brigades, as, every army had these, and were fairly proportional (Polish Airborne and Mountain Brigade, 3 or so Canadian Armoured and Tank Brigades).

[Guest Walter R. Strapps]

Thanks for the info. I must admit that I was pretty sure that the Canadian army in 44/45 was bigger than the Polish army (that the Polish was bigger was the original contention). You numbers seem to support that at least. While I agree that after 1941 the Australians were to a greater or lesser extent independent of the British forces, do you think that the Indians qualify in this regard? I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that they were more fully integrated into the command structure. BTW do we know if there are Indian soldiers in Combat Mission? I would suspect not.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Major Tom]

The Polish Army might have had more fighting formations, but, the Canadian Army had a bigger infrastructure, and was an independent force (The Poles were always a part of a larger British formation). Now, you could say that the 1st Canadian Army was under the command of the 21st Army Group (so theoretically under British Control), but, it was a very autonomous force (about as autonomous as Pattons 3rd Army). So, the Canadian Army WAS numerically larger, except the Poles had about the same number of troops in fighting units (The Canadians had 1 or so less divisions, but, posessed more independent Brigades).

The Indian Army would be considered part of the British Commonwealth, not part of the British Army. It is difficult to differentiate, but, the ALL of the Commonwealth forces had virtual autonomy. The Australians and New Zealanders HAD A CHOICE to declare war on Germany whenever they wanted, or even to decline, but, they decided to go along with England and declare war on September 3. The Indian army is a separate entity than the British Army. No Indian formations fought in France in 1944-45, they were either in Italy or Burma. They were more controlled than the Colonies, as, British commanders commanded Indian Divisions and Corps, where Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans were the commanders of their Divisions and Corps. The Indian Army didn't quite have the same freedom as the Commonwealth forces.

[Mike T]

According to the official History of the Canadian Army in WW2:

630,052 Canadians served in the Active Army - All of these men and women (25,251 Women) were volunteers.

100,573 men were called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act (Conscription).

Total army 'intake' was 730,625

249,624 Men and Women served in the RCAF.

106,522 Men and Women served in the RCN.

Total enlisted 1,086,771 out of a population of 11,267,000.

Died 22,917 in the Army, 17,101 in the Air Force, and 2024 in the Navy.

Compare this to WWI - out of a population of 7,879,000 - 628,462 served in the Army, approximately 10,000 in the Navy, and about 24,000 in the British Air Forces (RFC, RNFC and RAF). Casualties in the Army were 60,383 KIA or died of wounds and disease, 155,799 WIA.

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

'Bitter Mike'

[killmore]

Thanks for the numbers Major TOM!!!

Well recently Canada started to count personel of Merchant vessels as veterans. So thats why I wonder about their accuracy.

While India had 2.4 million how many of them were engaged in active fighting? So while it was a large army only small part was engaged in the war. I was interested only in fighting part of the army.

I do know that while Poland had larger fighting army the infrastructure was provided by other countries. Thats why I was asking for numbers without infrastructure/support.

[fd ski]

As for Polish Air Force in UK - Squadrons 300 and 301 flew bombers in Battle of Britain. 302 and 303 flew Hurries.

303 accounted for 120+ enemy planes - highest number of all squadrons in BoB - and they started flying in the Battle at the half point !!!

302 was assigned to the northern sector and not allowed to rotate until things quiet down.

As for spitfire - PAF units flew Hurries in BoB and reequipped with Spitfires soon afterwards.

Most of them flew Spitfires and Mustangs until 1945.

PAF fielded total 15 squadrons ( might be 17 - i'm not 100% sure .. at work )

That's a lot of people - despite small number of planes

Any qurestions ?

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

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Thanks for the numbers fd ski!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Australia had 4 divisions of the AIF (6-9) with the 8th division surrendering at Malaya. There were also many Militia Infantry divisions (7 or so) Plus 3 Armoured/Mechanized/Cavalry Divisions, along with numerous brigades. The Australian army was around 680 000 men strong. More troops in the army, but, less in the airforce and navy.

Australia should not be considered part of the British army, at least not in 1941+. They continualy disobeyed orders of deployment from London. Churchill wanted the 7th Division to go to Burma, or the Dutch East Indies, but, Curtin (Australian PM?) recalled all divisions (except the 8th) back to Australia for home defence.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank god you clarified that Major Tom about the Aussies. The very thought of the AIF being classified as being part of the British army with no indication of their true autonomy from the Poms made me almost choke while reading the screen. It makes you wonder how many men would have been saved from the horrors of the Japaneses death camps if the poor sods from the 8th AIF division hadn't been dumped in Singapore to fight an already lost cause. (Sort of reminds me about the almost Don Quixote like use of the Aussies in the doomed defence of Greece in 1941... another splendid use of another countries troops by the British Empire!)

Regards

Jim R.

[PeterNZer]

yeah, NZ and Ausie were independent, but of course it was expected we'd go where Britain went, and of course both countries very happily joined in.

Infact, I think due to time zones and you lot sleeping and stuff we may have declared war first.. although I am probably wildly wrong.

After some of the destruction in ww1 both Aus and NZ had their own commanders I believe, since we didn't really trust the Brits that much

PeterNZ

[Guest wwb_99]

A great discussion of the performance of Polish troops in battle can be found in Keegan's "Six Armies in Normandy." His narrative, 'A Polish Battlefield,' covers the engagment at Chambois as well as the battle on the Mace and the final closure of the Falais gap. The Poles come across as quite brave, which is no suprise to me. Polish soldiers have always put up a good record on the field but Poland itself has been terminally screwed off the field.

WWB