The Netherlands in SC2.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam and Bill

You've just suggested the same question and reached the same conclusion as British military planners during the late twenties-early thirties.

Many people of the time, felt an all tank and mechanized army would be the way of the future and began testing the idea on a small scale. By the mid-thirties it became evident that an all arms force, as Bill says, was the correct path.

An interesting example of this occurred at Kursk where the new assualt tanks were integrated with infantry. They were not fitted with their own small calibre weapons, only large pieces fixed in non-turreted heavily armored vehicles.

The inexperienced crews ran ahead of the infantry they were attached to and were destroyed by Soviet ground troops placing explovives in their tracks and on their chasis.

[xwormwood]

You are refering to the "Ferdinand",

a heavy tank destroyer which was thrown into duty without any machinguns for selfdefense, only equiped with it's 88mm gun. Later versions got an additional mg.

But this massive something is very nasty, even without a mg. At least, if you are playing Steel Panthers and you stumble :eek: with your Sherman into one of them (always a little shock).

edit: while i was looking for a single picture of a burning sherman tank (all in vain, heck, is there really not a single picture?) i found this very interesting homepage (Pierre André Rinfret)which made me stop seaching, because reading all these insider comments about WW2 were just to exciting:

Give it a try!

[ February 02, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[JerseyJohn]

That's the one. I believe the panzer grenediers dubbed it the "Elephant" or the "Rhino", I'm not sure which.

Yes, it is a fine armored vehicle. What I was getting at is that even something that heavy still required infantry protection to operate properly; the function of combined arms. Armor piercing 88mm shells are useless against enemy infantrymen attaching explovives to the hull and caterpillers.

I'm surprised you couldn't find images of burning Shermans, I've seen a lot of film footage showing that. An uncle of mine who served in them in Europe, had nightmares about being blown up till about ten years after the war ended! They were fast and reliable and easy to mass produce, but also underarmed, underarmored deathtraps for their crews.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I'm surprised you couldn't find images of burning Shermans, I've seen a lot of film footage showing that. An uncle of mine who served in them in Europe, had nightmares about being blown up till about ten years after the war ended! They were fast and reliable and easy to mass produce, but also underarmed, underarmored deathtraps for their crews.

still no burning sherman, but i just discovered the nicknames of this tank, wasn't aware of them until today:

Sherman tank: nicknames

[Liam]

Bill and John: Well, a Bofors is a fine weapon and could probably take out most medium tanks at close range. When I speak about a few thousand AFVs too I don't mean cumbersome Tigers who're deadly Dreadnaughts but hardly manueverable cruisers of Land. Tanks are still always in close terrain overexposed to small arms and explosives. As mentioned the crew alone at night has to come out eventually. I remeber watching a a movie about the Soviet Afgan Conflict, was about a Tank that a bunch of Afgan's were tracking to kill. They had a hell of a time on both ends. Lovely how much Power and Protection a Tank can offer and likewise how vulnerable you can feel in one.

However, if you set 2,000 Medium Tanks loose regardless of being smooshed they could wreak some havoc even with a Small Army. Even if they lost... You'd naturally have to favor the terrain and the offensive. You'd had to go for the 'kill' so to speak and make people frightened. I think the prospect of a Mini Nation having so many armored pieces alone is frightening. Even if they only ran for a week or two in the right hands and with some limited MG support can you imagine? I'm certian both Kuwait<could've definitely afforded them> and Netherlands spent as much money on ships to buy probably what 500? The Dutch Navy didn't save them... or even dent a German Panzer I

Tanks are wonderful Machines in experienced hands. Think of a Mobile MG nest. Think of the ability to also hide in terrain and ambush and kill just about anything, but another tank. The only thing in your way are ATGs/Specialized Infantry and other Tanks.

Watching Heavy Metal Last Night John. For every 1 tank Germany produced the US Produced 4. I suppose the thinking was flank and kill, flank and kill. Though I'm sorry, personally, I wouldn't want to be the guy in the Sherman. <all the German Guys they interviewed had their faces in tact, whilst the Brits all had pieces missing, if that's any sign> I think the Sherman is a nice Machine. Fortunately Production, terrain and finally<poor leadership decisions by the Germans> made the Tiger not the deciding factor. That and our Hellish Airforce...

You can produce a crap load more of Equipment for what it costs to buy a tank. Same with Battleships, but both have and still hold great use.. Tank warfare is definitely fascinating though, and the Role it took in WW2

[Bill101]

Liam

I never thought that you meant lumbering Tigers, and I'll agree with you on the deterrent effect that such a force would have.

However, a tank force would become obsolete far quicker than just about any other part of the army, thus the army would probably cost a lot more to keep it up to date than if it was an all arms force.

Not necessarily a problem, but most countries would not want to sustain the cost in the long run.

Also, even a force of 2,000 tanks could not effectively cover the whole of the Dutch frontier with Germany on its own. They would have to be literally thrown at the invader in one hit, and if they didn't have engineers and plenty of supply troops with them then I cannot see them going too far.

The experiences of the time would argue against all tank formations in favour perhaps of an all arms mobile force.

The British tank attack at Cambrai in 1917, by the Spanish Republicans in 1937, and by the Poles outside Warsaw in 1939, all showed that tanks operating largely alone could be effective, but on all three ocassions no sustainable gains were made as once they had outrun their supporting troops they were cut off and destroyed, or had to be abandoned as they had run out of fuel and ammo.

I would certainly advocate that any army from the 1920s onward, and no matter how small, would require a decently equipped and well prepared mobile force, so that if they were attacked they would be able to offer more than just a passive defence.

I even believe that countries like Poland were correct to maintain horsed units, even if I have different ideas about their organisation and strategic deployment.

But I think that this mobile force should only be a proportion of the army as a whole, even if it would receive most of the funding.

[ February 03, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

Great, if somewhat gruesome link. Right on the money, it was exactly what my uncle used to say through the fifties and sixties and guys who were 4f at the time used to say he was nuts, that American had the best stuff on earth. Yeah, right, my uncle had only been there and taken part in a dozen battles, what the hell did he know compared to some guy with a crooked nose who couldn't be drafted! The good thing is I thought I'd forgotten about that 4f blowhard, the bad thing is, I haven't!

Liam

Good points, what you say is what I originally thought you meant -- I never for a moment envisioned lumering monsters being the prime element in such a force.

By the late sixties the Soviets were regretting their decision to fill the Warsaw Pact bases with so many tanks. There were getting to be too many good weapons that knocked them out, especially from the air. Even back then they were talking about small inexpensive heat seaking missles for land use.

Never felt the Polish decision to have horse unites was the joke people made it out to be. They also had some tanks but for them horses were better. Also, they didn't go laughing and screaming into assaults on moving tanks. There is one instance of that I recall reading about many years ago, and it was pure, suicidal desperation. Instead of being viewed as it deserved, as the last resort of extremely brave men, a lot of Americans turned it into a dumb Polock joke, which was pathetic.

The United States Army of Sept 1939, if placed in Poland without the Polish Army, would have been lucky to last a week, but Americans don't want to think in those terms. And yes, at the time we also had cavalry units; the Germans had a cavalry division too.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Actually, there is a post WWII example of a nation that subsituted armor for manpower... Israel.

They needed the financial backing of the US (ie US Military Aid) to equip themselves, but due to thier circumstances, they were able to produce the best tactical army in the world using a armor heavy concept.

Somewhere in the late 60's or early 70's, they went too far with the armor and sufferred due to the neglect of the infantry arm. Thats when they started to raise "paratrooper" units to increase the quality of the infantry.

They even went so far as to develop thier own tank, the Merkava (?), which very few will argue against, is the best defensive tank in the world.

Poland and the Low Countries, didn't have the advantage we do, of hindsight. During thier day, the defensive doctrine ruled (which France heavily invested in), and strategic airpower was an alternative (which worked for the British).

Its not hard to understand why the Low Countries felt it was better to have a military that supplemented the major power (France), and hope that if thier neutrality was violated, that France and the UK would rescue them.

Poland though, was between a rock and hard place. Neither Germany or Russia was in favor of Poland existing, so Poland had to look to France to guarantee its survival. Its almost impossible for a minor nation to follow a military doctrine that is different from its major nation supporter.

Though we hear about Germany and the British writers who advocated it, it was really Russia that believed in armored warfare. The experiences of the Russian Civil War and the vast distances in Russia, "proved" that it would work for them.

What Poland really needed, was a better intelligence service, that informed them of the Russian developments, so they could develop a counter... along the lines of anti-tank weapons. Polish Infantry divisions equipped with effective anti-tank weapons would have been the most cost effective solution for the Polish military. It would have prevented a quick defeat, which would them allow the Polish allies to reinforce Poland.

[Bill101]

The Poles had effective anti-tank weapons (their anti-tank gun was better than the German equivalent) they just didn't have enough of them.

Their establishment was 3 to an infantry battalion, 4 to a cavalry regiment, making 27 to an infantry division, 12 or 16 to a cavalry brigade (depending on the number of regiments in the brigade).

More anti-tank guns would have helped, but other problems were more significant:

1) The extent of territory each unit had to cover was too broad.

2) The grand strategic situation was totally against them.

3) Their communications were inadequate.

4) They had less artillery than the Germans, and often theirs would have to help repel tank attacks, firing over open sights rather than being used for indirect fire.

5) They had too few units to cope with being invaded from every side.

6) Their air force could not protect them, and their AA guns were too few. They also ran out of AA ammo during the battle of the Bzura.

7) The more modern versions of their aircraft, both fighters and light reconaissance bombers, were being produced for export rather than home defense, leaving the Polish air force with the older types. They also exported 168 modern Bofors AA guns before the war, some of which were bought by the British.

Polish doctrine did follow the French to a large degree, but not totally. Their own war experiences from the period 1914-21 were different from the French, and they were more offensively minded - hence the myths of cavalry charges against tanks.

I've always been interested in the Polish campaign, not just because their situation was an interesting problem, but also because they showed a good fighting spirit in 1939 which most of the French didn't show 9 months later, despite having more and better equipment.

And lastly a note on the reliability of tanks at the time: when the Russians invaded Poland, the Poles knocked out about 40 Russian tanks, while over 400 broke down en route.

[ February 03, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Bill101

What specific weapon where you referring to? I know the Germans had a 37mm "anti-tank" gun, which the Russians either copied and/or developed a larger one. Is that the weapon you were referring to? I was thinking more along the lines of a anti-tank rocket launcher (ie bazokka/panzerfaust(?)) for the infantry, not a crew served weapon.

I do agree that the Polish strategic situation was rather hopeless. I don't agree that the French soldier didn't show good "fighting spirit". It was the French leadership (military and political) that gave up, not the French soldier.

[Liam]

the german mainline atg was same gun on all there p3 tanks up until the H model. not bad, but still required accuracy to kill french or british armor. 88 killed anything and everything. better than a bofors

what about the Czecks? the poles would've been better off with suicide Cav, with TNT Satchels and ran in, placed em all over the turret of the German tanks and ran out.. still behind those panzers were Wermacht Infantry. Highly mobile, Mobile forces are dangerous. speed, situational awareness and being able to setup in a whole new location on the drop of a dime is what makes an Army versatile. The Blitzkrieg and German Army Period of that time was a class above Poland. Poland would've been better moving the battle to the Cities like Russia did.. Fighting house to house instead of going frontal with a Steel Leopard clawing it's guts out.. think Germany could deploy, Kill, Move, Deploy, Kill. Poles could deploy, hide, die... French same thing, but they have no excuse they had the money and equipment just no Famous Military Thinkers

[ February 04, 2004, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Liam]

John:

I agree the American Army was more pathetic than the Polish in 1939. All those Nasty Cutbacks from the Depression...

Cavalry is extremely effective if you do not have Fuel. Many Nations used them, and they were the staple diet to get somewhere fast. Remeber the Germans used Bicycles too!

Poles needed an offensive by the Brits and French within a week! Where the Hell were they? They had their fingers up their butt I tell you!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

What really bothers me about the whole Anglo-French program in Eastern Europe is they knew ahead of time that they wouldn't be able either lend any direct assistance, or start an offensive till the whole eastern campaign was over.

The rest of the Balkan and Baltic States lost faith in them, especially France, when they turned their backs on Czhechoslovakia. The Poles, who till then had been cooperating with the Germans, were suddenly clutching at straws.

Perhaps, if the UK and France had been totally honest and stated that their alliance was more in the spirit of carrying on in the fallen ally's memory, Poland might have negotiated. Ribbentrop's original propposal hinted at shifting territories taken from the Czechs in exchange for the Danzig Corridor and from there Germany planned to just march into Danzig itself, a League of Nations city, which was utterly meaningless. This was soon out of the question with the British and French leaders making speeches about drawing the line.

First they went out of their way to destroy their credibility and then they went overboard trying to reestablish it. Predictably, none of that worked.

As you say, cavalry was a viable arm, especially on flat terrain. The Soviets used it to great effect on their steppes and so did the Germans through Russian auxilleries. By the late thirties, even when they carried sabres and lances, it was understood that these troops were really mounted infantry and not dragoons.

[ February 04, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

Shaka:

I'm referring to the 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun, of which the Poles had about 1,200.

I have also come across accounts of 40mm Bofors AA guns being used in an anti-tank role (one of the 5 Russian tanks destroyed at Wilno was knocked out by one), as well as of 75mm field and horse artillery being used in this role.

The Poles did have some thousands of fairly decent anti-tank rifles too which were to have been issued one per platoon or cavalry troop. Unfortunately, not all were distributed to the soldiers in time.

An account by a cavalry officer that I have read said that the anti-tank rifles were rather long and too bulky to be easily carried on horseback. They couldn't just sling the gun over their shoulder as they would with a normal rifle. They weren't quite as long as the later Russian ATRs, but the pictures I've seen of them do confirm this.

The Germans equipped 10 of their infantry divisions with captured Polish anti-tank rifles for the campaign in France, and they didn't stop using them until late 1941 when they realised that they were useless against the Russian tanks that were attacking them outside Moscow.

A friend of mine once fired an anti-tank rifle while he was in the British army during the war, and he said that he slid back several feet when it fired, but it put a big hole through the target, which was a piece of railway line.

I don't decry the French soldiers' fighting spirit, but I mean that overall the country didn't show the same qualities, including the general staff. Some French fought very well, many of whom were unfortunately left behind at Dunkirk holding the beachhead while others whose spirit was broken were embarked.

I also admire De Gaulle's efforts to launch counter-attacks, and he was a French military thinker who was advocating ideas similar to Liam's.

The problem with the French was that they learnt no lessons whatsoever from the Polish defeat as they didn't think that the same could happen to them.

The German 37mm gun (Pak 35/36) was nearly but not quite as good. It didn't matter against most Polish tanks, but in France they were definitely inferior, which is why the 88s were so useful at Arras.

I have come across an account of 20mm AA guns being used by the Germans in a ground support role in Poland, but not 88s. Doesn't mean that they didn't though.

[Bill101]

Liam wrote:

"Poles needed an offensive by the Brits and French within a week! Where the Hell were they? They had their fingers up their butt I tell you!"

I couldn't agree more, and they could have saved so much blood and suffering if they had done something. Even the French offensive into the Saar was a joke.

I think that their inactivity is the biggest tragedy of World War II.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I qgree that the Allies abandonment of Poland was one of the tragedies of WWII. I believe France should have more blame in this than the British. Though I have read accounts that stated the British were the ones who were being the hardliners, pulling the French along.

Bill101

Do you have any idea of the breakdown of the Polish Army? I show them with 43 divisions, but I don't know how many are infantry, cavalry, etc.

More importantly though, do you know how many artillery peices the Polish to&e gave to a infantry division? I'm also assuming these are 75mm pieces (like the French), with heavier pieces (if any), kept at higher level HQ's.

And what source are your referring to? Different readings over the years, or do you have a reference source? Its seems to be hard for the informal historian to find information on the Polish OOB.

[Bill101]

Shaka, the best source is Steven Zaloga and Victor Madej's The Polish Campaign 1939. It has a good account of the invasion, but it spends more time describing the Polish army's doctrine, equipment and organisation. I have read it so many times I know much of it off by heart, but it might be out of print now.

Steven Zaloga had another book published last year with the same title. It will be similar, but less substantial. You can find details of it at www.ospreypublishing.com.

The Polish peace time strength was 30 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, and 2 mechanised brigades (these were more of a motorised infantry formation than a tank unit), making 43 units. There were also other units, including 3 light tank battalions.

On mobilisation the number of infantry divisions were to be increased to 39, supplemented by units of National Guard and Border Troops.

Things didn't work out exactly as planned during the invasion (not a big surprise!), and at one point towards the end they even had a cavalry division, made up of the remnants of several cavalry brigades.

As to artillery, each infantry regiment of 3 battalions had 2 75mm guns. In addition, the divisional artillery was 48 75mm and 12 heavier pieces (a mixture of 105mm and 155mm if I remember correctly).

Cavalry units just had 75mm artillery, and anything heavier wouldn't have been so mobile.

The mechanised brigades had less artillery than a cavalry brigade, mainly 75s and a battery of 100mm, though sources differ, and the second brigade had a slightly different TOE to the first one.

They also had some artillery at higher levels, including some motorised heavy artillery units, the heaviest being a regiment of 27 220mm mortars, which unfortunately only had bombs that were of use against concrete emplacements. They had a good morale effect when some were used against German units during the Bzura battle, but they caused few casualties.

Some links for you:

http://derela.republika.pl/armcarpl.htm

http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/

[ February 04, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Liam]

Was reading a bit on Polish Armor. Not too bad! Just not enough French armor. Also seems the Poles just weren't all ready. Could be an interesting scenario to see the Poles fully mobilized and their equipment a bit more updated with Czeckoslovakia fighting side by side and perhaps even an extra Balkan or two..

Since a very large portion of the German tank attack was Light Armor, I don't believe it mattered much what type of ATGs the Poles possessed, just quantity.

[JerseyJohn]

As is so often the case, CvM put up a senario along these lines, a war instead of the Munich Conference and the Spanish Civil War part of it, with Prague Allied and the Poles fighting along side the Czhechs.

Agreed on the anti-tank gun point, Liam. It wasn't till France that Hitler admitted his mistake in mounting the heavier high velocity gun on the Mk III and putting the short range low velocity weapon on the Mk IV. Meanwhile they made extensive use of that light Czhech tank in Poland, and also armoured cars, both of which served different functions later in the war -- those that survived 1939 & 40.

[The Dutch Army]

Dutch History

The Dutch surrenders because the Germans Bombed Rotterdam en efter that the Germans wanted to Bommer Utrecht an Amsterdam but Holland surrenders even before Rotterdam wase bummed

because the Radio's in the Germans bummers dind't work.

After that the Dutch army surrounded they are binge free after two weeks Prisoner.

En there was verry little resections because Hitler was trying to win the civilians fore them so they wood join the Nationaal Socialistische Beweging the NSB.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, according to National Socialist reasoning, the Dutch, Danes and Norwegians were all fellow Germans and the most welcome additions to the Reich. Late in the war, Hitler felt betrayed by the Dutch who made it obvious who's side they really wanted to be on by organizing work slow downs and strikes. His response was to cut food supplies to Holland and cause as many Dutch to starve to death as possible. That winter of 1944-45 was an incredibly tragic time for Holland.

There was a mix-up in the orders to bomb Rotterdam, at least regarding the timing. It was supposed to take place before the Dutch surrender but the truth is Goering wanted to display just how terrible his Luftwaffe was capable of doing and Goebels sought terror footage for the Hungarians, Rumanians and Yugoslavs to see and think about. Along the same lines, it was also felt such an act would send the right message to Londoners and help end the war in the west early.

Rotterdam Ablaze

[ February 14, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[The Dutch Army]

Liberty of Holland

I believe that the hunger winter 1944-1945 was because that the Allies where at the border of Holland and they need toby supply because of the Ardennes Offensive of the Nazi's en that would token the hole winter

In the meanwhile London hase spoken to the Dutch resections that all reel road workers most at strike(staken)sodate the the Dutch Germans cant by slupply

The NSBer's excepting also the attack one Holland en they fled to Germany

Butte if Holland canned slupply during the winter there wood by no food leafed fore the civilians en the Liberty of Holland wood have to wheat

that wase my story

[Liam]

Hardships, I believe that is what we wish to establish here. I'm certian the Dutch endured many, relative for such a small Nation. I'm fortunate to be a Humanbeing due to the fact of a Brave Anti-Aircraft Gunner on a MineTrauler in the Pacific Or my GrandFather would've been sharkfood... that or the poor quality of German Rockets would've blown em up in his own house. Our valiant effort in making sure my half Home Nation was fed by American Loan ships...Worldwide Allegiance Against Nazism to feed England and my family there.

Or my Uncles at Dunkqurkue who fought valiantly for the Allies, or my GrandMother who produced Boots for these guys and ran from V1-2 Rockets and Strafing Stukas, Heinkels and Messerschmitts.

Of the tens of thousands of British Citizens who died and many more Soldiers I applaud them. Certianly if all of Europe were conspirators, the War would've been lost for the Allies. Tens of Millions of Russians, and Millions of Western/Eastern/Worldwide Allies died in the name of Freedom and more importantly Individuality.

The Low Countries were not conspirators. They had their element of Nazi sympathizers, although one must remeber that Anne Frank was habored in the LC while in many other places<including the USA> the acceptance of Minorities wasn't allowed. The History there is Great and I think what's been in question as of late is the Loyalty of the Dutch, and Belgian People. I can honestly say that I personally believe a Majority of them 'fought' as well as they could. Had they a Army the size of France, Poland or any other Medium Power they'd of fought as hard as far as I suspect. They didn't give into bullying and could've easily signed a Pact to join the Axis...

As far as Eastern Europe I can't be so sure! Finland should've stayed Neutral<they were being opportunists> Buglaria, Romania and Hungary were all IMO conspirators and got what they deserved, the Iron Curtain.

Italy, well, LOL they likely aided the Allied War Effort, so I can't say much for them.

[ February 14, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Panzeh]

Note that the Hungarians never ran a death camp nor allowed one within their borders. Horthy also tried saving his country's jews but he was snatched.

[JerseyJohn]

Nazi alliance structure was based entirely on the principle of divide and conquer. None of the countries mentioned could have stood up to Germany individually and, if they'd been bound by a mutual defense pact, it would have been Hungary that would have borne the brunt of the fighting, loss and damage -- assuming the defense was successful. If not, Hungary would not only have suffered the losses but been subjugated as well. Romania would have fallen quickly afterwards and Bulgaria next.

Add to this the presense of another predator state to the west in Fascist Italy and the largest to the east in Stalinist Russia.

So what course were those countries supposed to follow? Complete independance wasn't possible after the initial fighting had begun. With the fall of France Germany let it be known that the Balkans would either be allied with Germany, or a part of Greater Germany. So they became allies.

There was nothing opportunistic about it.

As for Finland, just how were they supposed to remain neutral? Russia had already attacked them, had absorbed their three Baltic neighbors like a shark swallowing a few small fish -- the only thing that baffles me about them is they didn't go along all the way, guaranteeing the German capture of Leningrad, which the could easily have negotiated occuplation of.

There was only a single hope for Balkan and Baltic independance, all the countries need to for into a defensive league when there was still an Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Poland attempted to do this during the early thirties, alligning all these small countries as a buffer between against potential German or Soviet aggression, backed up by France and, at the time -- Italy! It fell through because Poland was the only nation whose leaders thought it was a good idea. At the time both Germany and the USSR were comparatively weak and the invited nations were suspicious of Polands motives.

It's worth noting that up till 1936 Belgium was allied with France but cancelled the arrangement exactly when it would actually have meant something.

I don't think any nation deserves any sort of harsh treatment. They may appear to be villains and heros on a map, but within the borders you'll always find the same unfortunate masses being dragged along by events. I have yet to meet any single person who altered the course his nation took in anything at all, yet we all have the unfortunate tendancy of referring to nations as though they were individuals. They aren't. Imposing collective guilt ought to be considered a crime.