PDA

View Full Version : Poland wins in 1939


Chris
January 20th, 2004, 05:11 PM
I promised Scott a polish victory scenario, well, this may not be the best outcome, but it’s the best I can do. This is the best-case outcome for Poland in the Second World War, but I’ve tried to change as little as possible. There is another Polish Victory AH, but that makes too many changes for me to be completely comfortable with it. First, I’m going to sum up Poland’s position as I see it:

Poland is trapped between two powerful and implacable foes
Poland’s is dependent upon the part of its land that Hitler wants for its economy. If it gives that up without a fight, Poland will become an effective satellite of Germany.
The Poles strongly believe that Blitzkrieg is unworkable. The Spanish Civil War did not see a successful one, but a string of failures.
It is extremely unlikely that France will be able to help out for at least a week and perhaps more, ditto Britain. French promised a major offensive on day 15. Their mobilization system was designed to be extra slow for some silly reason.
The Poles also had two other problems that limited them. The first was that Poland’s first demise had happened because of other powers taking little pieces of Poland and them promising, not unlike Hitler after Munich, not to take any more. The second was that if the Poles did manage to stop Hitler’s forces, the Soviets could roll in from the east and overwhelm what was left.

Therefore, the Polish war-plans called for a mobilisation and deployment along the borders in hopes of stopping an offensive. The Poles, who had secret contacts with Japan, had a slightly exaggerated view of the power of the Soviet armed forces and no understanding of the disparity between them and Germany. This gap in power was unapparent until fairly recently. However, the Poles made two fatal mistakes; one was to place their forces forward, (which allowed the Germans to break through and encircle them) and the second was to trust in the western powers, France and Britain, who were effectively bluffing. They, mainly Britain, talked the poles into not mobilising until it was too late. The Poles had to mobilise while fighting the war.

Numbers were, however, not as bad as many people think. A German armoured division (of which they had seven) had 400 tanks, including 48 heavy and 84 medium ones. There were also four light divisions (200 tanks and dozens of armoured vehicles). These and the four motorized divisions carried soldiers in lorries right to the very front line. Independent tank and armoured carrier units accompanied infantry divisions. Altogether the Germans used against Poland about 3000 tanks, with 5000 guns and 3000 aircraft in support. The Poles opposed them with about 900 tanks and armoured cars, 2000 guns and about 400 aircraft, mostly obsolete ones, with no reserves. However, the Polish Air Force was not wiped out on the first day, but continued to fly until it ran out of supplies.

Therefore, we need a creditable POD that won’t change WW2 too much. The best chance that Poland has is that of standing with Czechoslovakia in 1938, instead of taking some of their land and trying to stay out of the fighting. Let’s assume that they draw the correct conclusion from Hitler’s occupation of the Czechoslovakian rump state in May 1939. Germany occupied what was left of Czechoslovakia too fast for anyone to do anything about it. The action gave Germany a big increase in its military strength: a third of the tanks that attacked France in 1940 were made in Czechoslovakia (before or after the conquest). But it cost a lot diplomatically: this is arguably the first time Germany did something for which it had no real excuse, and it made it clear that Hitler could not be trusted. Let’s say that the Poles assume that, no matter what they do, they’ll be chopped up by Hitler regardless.



Therefore, they can do a few things. They can kick up their plans to mobilise and even hold a few practice sessions. Furthermore, they’ll need to plan on the assumption that there will be no help coming from France – or whatever help will arrive too late. Now, everyone believed that a few weeks of war and the Germany economy would collapse. In hindsight, that appears ridiculous, but there were a few points. If the Germans became bogged down in Poland, Hitler’s power would begin to crumble and the Germans might well run out of ammunition. They burnt several months stock in the OTL campaign and they had to spend a few months rebuilding those stocks.



As 1939 slips by, the Poles (as in OTL) become aware of the German build-up along the borders. They have been cracking German codes and know that Hitler plans to attack. They continue their own stockpiling and prepare for the invasion. Instead of meeting the Germans along the borders, they’ll leave token forces there and dig in near Wassaw. This offers them the main chance of holding the Germans. However, as offensive operations are necessary to improve morale, the Poles decide to take the war to East Prussia, see map (http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/81835.jpg).



Now, on 26th August 1939, Hitler planned to launch the invasion. However, news of yet another hypocritical pact being signed between Britain and Poland gave even him pause. The order to cancel operations did not quite reach every unit and there were a number of minor skirmishes. Lets assume that the Poles realise that Hitler plans to hit them in the very-near-future and begin a full mobilisation. In OTL, Britain and France convinced them to hold off until it was too late, here, the Poles mobilise anyway. Hitler orders the attack to be launched on the same date as OTL, 1st September.



The Germans attacked without tactical surprise, which pretty much happened in OTL, as the Poles had a fair idea of when they were coming. However, the Poles have withdrawn into defensible position, rather than strung out along the border, and the first German rush finds only small partisan units and destroyed bridges, blocked roads and other nasty tricks. The Germans have not, mainly found large polish units to attack. The one difference is in East Prussia, when the advancing German forces bumped into a strong polish force and were defeated.



(AN: In OTL, Germans had a 2:1 advantage in most categories. ATL: Poles have more forces in the area.)



The Poles and the Germans fight a series of small battles across the border between Poland and East Prussia. This convinces Hitler that the Poles are able to take East Prussia (debatable). He therefore places more emprises on the ‘Polish Corridor’ and orders the German army to concentrate on seizing that territory, with the effect that fighting elsewhere is reduced. This gives the poles valuable breathing space.



Sadly (well, maybe) for the Poles, Britain and France have taken the Polish early mobilisation as a fig leaf to do what they want to do anyway: abandon Poland. While both sides promise support, they send no real support beyond pious declarations. Incidentally, the Poles in the US press for US aid to Poland and the US sends some supplies while the ports are open. This development worries Stalin. Depending upon who you believe, Stalin made the agreement to divide Poland in the hope that Hitler would then turn his attention towards France, which gave him time to prepare for attacking Germany or defending Russia, depending upon whom you talk to. He therefore begins to re-evaluate his stance towards Poland and starts sending supplies to the Poles.



By seventh September, the situation is as follows:



East Prussia: The Poles have managed to take a chunk of East Prussia, although their hold is tenuous, and the Germans have been having local successes to push the Poles back.



Polish Corridor: The Germans have finally (!) managed to blitz their way through the corridor. They are now attempting to ship supplies through the corridor to relieve East Prussia. Polish Calvary is making that difficult.



Army Group South: The German first attack nearly closed on thin air. The Poles have retreated in good order to the river, although hampered by refugees, and are preparing a stand along the Vistula and in Warsaw, the government having retreated to Brzec. Local military command, however, remains in Warsaw.



Air: The Polish Air force has been dispersed and is holding its own from bases in the Russian section of Poland.



Supply: The Soviet supplies have eased what was a growing ammunition shortage on the part of the Poles, while the Germans have burnt about a quarter of their ammunition and are running out of spare parts.



12th September sees the Germans having secured the Polish Corridor and chased the poles back out of East Prussia, although at high cost. The Poles have also severely damaged the Germans military confidence, even through the Germans are winning, the fighting is too much like World War One’s for any confidence. Hitler decides on what is intended to be the final stoke to end the war; a full-scale attack on Warsaw.



17th September sees the Germans send the remainder of their professional forces on a Stalingrad-style attack on Warsaw, with massed air and artillitay support. The battle rages on for a week before the German army realises that they have “put their dicks in the sausage machine” (HT, Through the Darkness). As the whether worsens, the Polish Calvary is able to cut German supply lines and cripple the German forces.



As Hitler is unwilling to recognise what is effectively defeat, the German army launches a military coup, sweeping away much of the nazi party, although they have Goring as nominal Chancellor.



The Germans begin peace talks with the Poles in November. The Poles are also desperate for peace, as the soviet supplies are starting to come with a political price tag attached. The Germans get to keep the Corridor, although they have to allow the Poles free access and they have to sell Poland military equipment at cheap rates. Poland makes guarantees of limited supplies to the Germans.



The absence of the need to build up in Europe allows Stalin a chance to settle the Japanese once and for all. The soviet army builds up in Manchuria and attacks the Japanese, leading to a full-scale war between the two powers. By 1940, the Russians have taken most of the Japanese territory in Asia and Japan is forced to sue for peace.



World War Two is over.

Melvin Loh
January 22nd, 2004, 12:55 PM
IIRC there was a story on Dale Cozort's site which had the Poles develop their own anti-tank weapon based on the bazooka and be able to stop the blitzkrieg in its tracks. Can't remember the rest of that storyline, though.

Also, what about if the Brits and French had shown a little more backbone than OTL and assaulted Germany's western defences while Hitler was occupied in Poland, instead of sittin' on their hands during the 'sitzkrieg' ?

Abdul Hadi Pasha
January 22nd, 2004, 02:48 PM
The fully mobilized stength of the Polish Army was 3,000,000. Their plan was to fight a war of maneuver in the East and hope to guilt the French into helping. Due to Allied pressure to not mobilize, when Germany attacked, mobilization was only 10% complete. An additional 2,700,000 troops, while perhaps not enough for victory in a one-on-one, could still have bought Poland enough time for the French to do something, assuming Stalin takes a wait-and-see attitude.

Mike McGee
January 22nd, 2004, 09:21 PM
"what about if the Brits and French had shown a little more backbone than OTL"

That's ridiculous. Firstly, Britain wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1939 as was plainly demonstrated by the fact that their forces deployed in France were pounded all the way back to Dunkirk. Had they tried to intervene in Poland i think they'd have achieved nothing except lose many more guys and be in an even weaker position in France (not to mention post french surrender).

On top of that they can hardly be accused of not showing backbone. They did declare war on germany when it was by no means clear that they would win. And even after the fall of Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and even their own Channel Islands, as their capital and other cities were turning to rubble with massive civilian casualties, the Brits refused to negotiate any kind of deal with Hitler and fought on alone.

I can't believe i've defended the brits twice now today. it just feels wrong.

Mr.Bluenote
January 22nd, 2004, 10:03 PM
That's ridiculous. Firstly, Britain wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1939 as was plainly demonstrated by the fact that their forces deployed in France were pounded all the way back to Dunkirk. Had they tried to intervene in Poland i think they'd have achieved nothing except lose many more guys and be in an even weaker position in France.

Hmm, I just don't buy that, sorry McGee. As far as I know, and again I might be wrong, the French-German border were very lighly defended by the Germans, så all things considered the French should have been able to fight their way onto German soil. One of the reasons the french didn't is that they sufferede from, eh, very defensive way of thinking. The costly offensives in The Great War had thought the French that offense is not the best defense. One fact often understated was the strength of the French ramy, and is was indeed strong. Poorly lead, yes, but strong nevertheless.

One also have to consider that the german army in late 1939 was not as strong and tried as the one who rolled through the Ardennes in 1940. Neither were Hitler as secured in his position of power - no really big win yet. And I'm not sure the ordinary Fritz on the street were eager for a war with the rest of the world at this time...

The Poles after all hurt the Gremans rather badly during the invasion of Poland, and the Germans more or less threw everything they had at them!

As for backbone,! Hm, without Churchill I don't think the British really would have thought they had a chance agaisnt Hitler's hordes. They might have stod up to him, yes, but believed in it? No!

Best regards!

- Jan.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!

Mike McGee
January 23rd, 2004, 01:14 AM
I'll happily admit my knowledge of ww2 is a wee bit limited. but didn't britain and france declare war when germany invaded poland? i seam to remember a government backbencher saying something like "speak for england arthur" to the leader of the opposition when the PM dithered. i thought britain gave the germans an ultimatum to get out of poland by 12 o'clock the day after they invaded or something, and then declared war on germany immediately after the deadline passed.

Mr.Bluenote
January 23rd, 2004, 01:39 AM
i thought britain gave the germans an ultimatum to get out of poland by 12 o'clock the day after they invaded or something, and then declared war on germany immediately after the deadline passed.

Oh, you're quite right, Mike, but I think the Brits hoped and prayed for Hitler would back down. As mentioned somewhere lese the Brits convinced the Poles not to mobilise their large army up to the German invasion.
You're assumption that the UK was in no way able to fight a great continental war in '39 is in my opinion accurate, and my ire is directed at the French for failing to mount a serious attack into Gemany as promised. Had tanks, guns, planes and men coming out of their behind, but it all stod idle while Poland got smashed flat

Best regards and all!

- Bluenote.

Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!

Otis Tarda
January 23rd, 2004, 10:24 AM
The fully mobilized stength of the Polish Army was 3,000,000. Their plan was to fight a war of maneuver in the East and hope to guilt the French into helping. Due to Allied pressure to not mobilize, when Germany attacked, mobilization was only 10% complete. An additional 2,700,000 troops, while perhaps not enough for victory in a one-on-one, could still have bought Poland enough time for the French to do something, assuming Stalin takes a wait-and-see attitude.

Do not overestimate the power of White Eagle, Hadi :). Polish plan of mobilization anticipated about 1 000 000 soldiers in front units, 150 000 in reserves and 300 000 in civil defense.
Yes, we potentially could mobilize up to 3 000 000, but we wer limited by finances.
In september 39' poland mobilized about 1.2 mln soldiers, considering civil defence and reserves... so, Allied presure wasn't so terrible.

IIRC there was a story on Dale Cozort's site which had the Poles develop their own anti-tank weapon based on the bazooka and be able to stop the blitzkrieg in its tracks. Can't remember the rest of that storyline, though.

But Polish Army had its own anti-tank weapon. It was long antitank rifle (remeber, that Germans didn't have Tigers at this time) name "Ur" - which bullet could easily pierce tank's armor. Unfortunately, Polish army was shortly of it.
That's for now. I'll wait and watch further discussion. :)

MerryPrankster
March 4th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Chris's scenario is interesting.

Hitler can sell this to the German public as a victory, but it was a very costly, unpleasant one. And Germany is VERY weakened militarily.

Now what?

Max Sinister
March 4th, 2007, 06:48 PM
If the Allies (and Stalin) let him keep it, Hitler may indeed still be remembered as one of the greatest German leaders :mad: But his greatest dream, the conquest of Russia, would be dead of course. And let's not forget my favorite topic: After the prolonged war in Poland, Germany would be broke.

So or so, everything in the long run depends whether Stalin really had planned an attack against the west. (Even more unlikely than IOTL - probably a German-Polish-French-British-Japanese-American coalition would form against him.)

MerryPrankster
March 4th, 2007, 06:49 PM
So or so, everything in the long run depends whether Stalin really had planned an attack against the west. (Even more unlikely than IOTL - probably a German-Polish-French-British-Japanese-American coalition would form against him.)

Unless the Soviets invade Alaska, I don't think the US would join the anti-Soviet coalition, at least initially.

Max Sinister
March 4th, 2007, 06:51 PM
Despite American anti-Communism?

MerryPrankster
March 4th, 2007, 07:07 PM
Despite American anti-Communism?

Just because Americans in general disliked Communism doesn't mean the US would ally up with the Western European states to fight the USSR.

In this period, the US viewed WWI as a stupid waste of money and lives and would rather stay home.

It would be perceived as another foreign war--not our problem.

And remember who is the POTUS at this point. He's not going to ask Congress to declare war on the USSR if it attacks Poland or the Japanese.

BGMan
December 26th, 2007, 05:54 PM
I think one of the biggest reasons Poland lost against the Germans was because they placed their army too far forward. The Germans punched through and there was nothing to stop them.

I'd be thinking of a scenario where Poland employs the same strategies against the Germans as Finland did against the Soviets -- namely, by keeping as far back as possible and using the motti method of biting off chunks of the enemy units, surrounding them, letting them use up their ammunition, shooting up their field kitchens (extra evil :cool:) and mopping them up.

I find it remarkable that a small, sparsely-populated country of only 4 million people was able to hold off invasion by one of the most powerful countries in the world with the loss of only one-tenth of its territory. And, I might add that the Soviets had total air superiority and were much better equipped... and that the Finns were fighting back mainly by using captured Soviet equipment (and Panzerfausts they later got from Germany). Poland had about eight times Finland's population, and much more equipment -- not to mention some of the best fighter pilots in the world -- and could conceivably have made two such lines, against both the Germans and the Soviets.

Bottom line... I think Poland should have had Finnish advisors to help plan their defense. Both countries were vehemently anti-Soviet. I think we should think about how Poland could have used a Finnish-style defence against the Germans.

mattw101
December 26th, 2007, 06:13 PM
I think one of the biggest reasons Poland lost against the Germans was because they placed their army too far forward. The Germans punched through and there was nothing to stop them.

I'd be thinking of a scenario where Poland employs the same strategies against the Germans as Finland did against the Soviets -- namely, by keeping as far back as possible and using the motti method of biting off chunks of the enemy units, surrounding them, letting them use up their ammunition, shooting up their field kitchens (extra evil :cool:) and mopping them up.

I find it remarkable that a small, sparsely-populated country of only 4 million people was able to hold off invasion by one of the most powerful countries in the world with the loss of only one-tenth of its territory. And, I might add that the Soviets had total air superiority and were much better equipped... and that the Finns were fighting back mainly by using captured Soviet equipment (and Panzerfausts they later got from Germany). Poland had about eight times Finland's population, and much more equipment -- not to mention some of the best fighter pilots in the world -- and could conceivably have made two such lines, against both the Germans and the Soviets.

Bottom line... I think Poland should have had Finnish advisors to help plan their defense. Both countries were vehemently anti-Soviet. I think we should think about how Poland could have used a Finnish-style defence against the Germans.

But would the Finnish tactics be applicable to the terrain of Poland? And of course if the Germans attack in September the winter cold won't be there to help the Poles as it did the Finns.

Antanas
December 26th, 2007, 06:17 PM
impossible for poles to win

BGMan
December 26th, 2007, 08:30 PM
But would the Finnish tactics be applicable to the terrain of Poland? And of course if the Germans attack in September the winter cold won't be there to help the Poles as it did the Finns.
I'm not sure the winter cold was in fact a factor. The Russians themselves were notorious for exploiting the winter cold to their own advantage against the Axis and against Napoleon. So both the Finns and Soviets were attuned to winter cold.

I do think the Poles would in fact have had a chance if they had placed more of their army farther back and tried to make a few layers of defensive lines. Instead, they had most of their army concentrated on the border.

Jukra
December 26th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I think one of the biggest reasons Poland lost against the Germans was because they placed their army too far forward. The Germans punched through and there was nothing to stop them.

I'd be thinking of a scenario where Poland employs the same strategies against the Germans as Finland did against the Soviets -- namely, by keeping as far back as possible and using the motti method of biting off chunks of the enemy units, surrounding them, letting them use up their ammunition, shooting up their field kitchens (extra evil :cool:) and mopping them up
....
Bottom line... I think Poland should have had Finnish advisors to help plan their defense. Both countries were vehemently anti-Soviet. I think we should think about how Poland could have used a Finnish-style defence against the Germans.

Main Finnish theater of war was the Karelian Isthmus between Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, thus the Soviet avenue of approach was quite small. The only scope for manouver battle was north of Lake Ladoga, where motti's, or encirclements, had to be left to rot as Finnish units in the North did not have sufficient artillery to finish them off quickly. Finnish armed forces were not as lavishly equipped as Soviet armed forces, but like Polish army, well equipped for a smaller power.

Now, IMHO, Poles could have fought German army to the standstill if they managed to develop similar advanced defense methods as many countries started to use in the middle period of war. Deep defense, lot of mines, concentrated artillery fire. Poles had the material resources for this, after all, Germans had just about 2:1 superiority, but unfortunately were the first ones to feel the brunt of WW II style assault.

Svartekaptenen
December 26th, 2007, 08:50 PM
The Polish highcommand was very aware of the situation but deemed
it impossible to withdraw the army to the Vistula and abandon that much
territory not to mention several big cities like Poznan, Lodz and Krakow without a fight, the political and moral cost would have been to great.
Finally they hoped for the Gerrman motorized formations to bog down
on the plains when the weather got worse with rain, But the Germans were
lucky the weather held.

Ward
December 26th, 2007, 09:09 PM
Aniother thing what if the polish aircraft that they had ordered from France and the UK had of arrived along with them Fully moblizeing .

Korwar
December 26th, 2007, 09:57 PM
More mobilisation, better communication between Polish forces and rainy weather could lead to victory. If muddy roads and better defence by Polish forces extends fighting for much more and the Germans are stopped after inital advance, then German fuel, machine and ammo supplies will seriously get limited, which in turn could convince French forces to invade and defeat weakened German forces.

sanusoi
December 26th, 2007, 11:51 PM
To but it bluntly, if the Polish Army had cracked open the German Panzers then most likely this could have happened. However, the whole scenario still has some floors in it.

A sudden Army Coup : Sorry Chris but the German Army still had faith in Hitler, even if he has screwed up.

Polish cavalry save the day and crush the supply line: Problem with that ia the German army was heavily armed with MG's during the Polish invasion. Unless you have cavalry ambush the supplies, ain't going to happen.

Germany accepting a peace like that: Well Germany would have still wanted a bit more then that, possibly a few extra towns and a DMZ.

Overall a good story but too many flaws within it.

Redbeard
December 27th, 2007, 02:30 PM
The Finns indeed did fight very galantly and utilised their limited resources very effectively. When all that is said, it must however also be added, that they were very much aided by Soviet incompetence. By 1939 Soviet execution of military leadership was extremely crude. For instance artillery support could best be described as massing huge numbers of guns and then firing arbitrarily in the general direction of the enemy. That gave a nimble army not afraid of seizing the initiative like the Finnish army great opportunities. By early 1940 the Soviets had already learned a lot however, and the Finns had no chance of withstanding the final massive assault on the Mannerheim Line.

The Germans by 1939, although not on 1940 standards (actually Blitzkrieg had not been invented yet), were way ahead of the Soviets, and could not be expected to execute the same blunders. OTOH the Germans had to be very bold, as they needed the campaign decisively ended in a few weeks.

With a more complete Polish mobilisation and a more in depth deployment I would not exclude that one or more key German formations could be defeated and the German offensive bogging down. By 1939 the Panzer Divisions still did not operate in semi-independent Panzer Korps (a key element in Blitzkrieg) and a more co-herrent Polish defence thus could cause serious problems for the Germans.

In an attritional war the Poles alone will not stand a chance, but apart from perhaps the French launching an offensive at the sight of German trouble, I also wonder how the Germans will react to this. Well into the 1940 campaign Hitler tended to panic at signs of trouble and the German leadership in general apparently were shocked when France and UK declared war - and utterly un-prepared. For instance the artillery ammo stocks were depleted after the OTL Polish campaign, in a drawn out campiagn that would force the German army to dig in and leave what is left of arty ammo for defensive operations.

If the Poles have prepared big stocks of ammo and supplies in central positions that could provide an interesting situation (Poles taking Berlin?!), but more likley they also dig in and wait for news.

But anyway I simply don't think Hitler could survive anything but a quick and decisive victory in Poland. Nobody would be paralysed by his political or military successes, on the contrary any goose stepping Feldwebel could easily be brought to see how disastrous that man had been to Germany - having bluffed and failed...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Dathi THorfinnsson
December 27th, 2007, 02:51 PM
T By 1939 Soviet execution of military leadership was extremely crude. For instance artillery support could best be described as massing huge numbers of guns and then firing arbitrarily in the general direction of the enemy.

:):)Gee, and here I thought extremely crude executions of military leadership took place in 1937:)

Markus
December 27th, 2007, 04:30 PM
If the Polish Army is fully mobilized and if they are deployed behind the rivers running through central Poland, their chances improve considerably. But IMO not enough. They still lack sufficient airpower and mobility and are at a numerical disadvantage. Their only hope is to keep fighting long enough for Britain and France to go on the offensive. But that better happens soon, because once Stalin realizes that Britain and France have written off Poland he will attack. Game over!

In your scenario Poland not only stops the attacks of three german Armies, but also take a part of East Prussia. The latter would require increasing the polish forces there at least fourfold, but given the german air superiority even that will hardly be enough. Besides, the troops will be missed elsewhere. Defending the corridor is even harder. Danzig is firmly under german control, and all forces stationed in the corridor are at the wrong side of the Vistula and face a pincer attack by geography.

My guess, the campaign last a few weeks longer. After a quick thrust thought he undefended terrain the advance is stopped, the Wehrmacht reorganizes quickly, punches a hole into the polish lines and the war get´s into another mobile phase again or into a kind of super-siege of the area around Warsaw. A lot of german tanks(most are obsolete anyway) will fall victim to the polish anti tank rifles and the german ammo and fuel reserves will be closer to empty that just half empty when the campaign is over.



-Markus

DuQuense
December 27th, 2007, 05:36 PM
@Markus
Given a longer Polish campaign, with the Germans burning more of their stockpile, it will take longer to rebuild, which will delay the start of the Western Campaign. In may of 1940 Germany had a window of good weather that greatly helped . Delay till June and a whole bunch of poor weather would have hampered the German offensive.

Redbeard
December 27th, 2007, 06:43 PM
Given a longer Polish campaign, with the Germans burning more of their stockpile, it will take longer to rebuild, which will delay the start of the Western Campaign. In may of 1940 Germany had a window of good weather that greatly helped . Delay till June and a whole bunch of poor weather would have hampered the German offensive.


Exactly, as well as the French by June being much better prepared to take on the German onslaught. Deliveries from the bfactories and import were accellerating in May-June 1940.

Besides I wonder if German airpower would have had that great effect on formed Polish troops not already beaten by land forces.

The OTL Luftwaffe results were against enemy troops already in disarray by land troop action (1939, 1940 and 1941), but general experience from WWII and later show that undefeated armies in the field are difficult to directly impair by air attack. I would compare it to Napoleonic cavalry, against a wavering enemy it would be decisive, but against steady formations if would have little effect.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Redbeard
December 27th, 2007, 06:48 PM
:):)Gee, and here I thought extremely crude executions of military leadership took place in 1937:)

He-he - that will teach me to choose my expressions with greater care :o

But anyway I guess yoy could say that the doctrine was the same in 1937 - but the generals were then the enemy you fired in the general direction of - worked OK then...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Tizoc
January 1st, 2008, 04:34 AM
Ahem. About too forward deployment of Polish forces - while it could be adjusted (meaning more units in Lesser Poland and north of Vistula, and less in Greater Poland) - it was unavoidable.

Why?

Simple - Polish High Command wasn't sure if another Munich wouldn't be pulled on them. Example: Polish forces deploy behind the great rivers. Germans invade, reach the Polish lines... and stop and call for a conference to deal with a "Posen and Corridor" problem...

Also, main ammo depots were west of Vistula. The most populated and industrialised parts of country aswell...

There are also other problems for Poles in 1939:
1. Unfinished battle-plan
2. Number of incompetent commanders (such as the commander of "Prusy" Army)
3. Compromised radio comunication
4. Bad logistics
...etc.