Patton in Poland

Berra · Jun 20, 2006

I think that Patton in Poland sounds cool and since nobody thinks that he ends up there as a military advisor, what if Patton becomes military attache in Poland 1937?

seraphim74 · Jun 20, 2006

what if Patton becomes military attache in Poland 1937?

In 1939 it changes absolutely nothing. He gets evacuated with all diplomatic corps.
One good thing, he can see real Blitzkrieg in action. His reports may be helpful in development of US Army ofensive doctrine and construction of new weapons (more advanced tanks?). He also could slightly weaken American isolationists by talking about German atrocities.
But what could Patton do in 1939 for Poland? He couldn't be an advisor (neutral country!), besides I'm not sure if he would have any good advise. German Blitzkrieg was something new and totally surprising then.

Max Sinister · Jun 20, 2006

He'd need a special reason to be there... something personal? But I don't think he had Polish relatives or such... hm, the Poles were working on deciphering Enigma, maybe that?

Iñaki · Jun 20, 2006

Hmm, could be but the United States are not a lot of isolationist in that time? so the presence of Patton in Poland would be strange, possible by some special reason but little probable, respect to Enigma I know that the poles offer this to the british but only after the war begins so I suppose the americans knew any about Enigma at least during the initial years of the World War II.

Berra · Jun 20, 2006

I guess that Patton might be to high ranking but the US was not isolationist enogh to not send out military ataches. It is kind of a diplomat anyway. Yuck, I have to do research.

Berra · Jun 20, 2006

Let's say that Patton gets sick of fighting to improve the tank force or just get a vision that he is a reincarnation of some polish dude. 1936 would be a good year. He forms some kind of frenship with some Polis general and then... ???

Otis Tarda · Jun 20, 2006

And then nothing important, in Polish Campaign, would happen. No chance that Polish military policy (that was conditioned by still developing industry), Polish trust to France and Great Britain or Polish defence plans could be changed.

On long run, probably, if Patton risking his life, observed campaign, he could have better insight in Blitzkrieg doctrine, or - maybe - in "political matters" (for example, he could decide that Soviets are also "bad guy" - which won't change anything, anyway).

So probably, besides butterflies, no major changes in WWII history.

Berra · Jun 21, 2006

Patton was not just a good armour comander, he was a good cavalery man and a unconventional warrior as he shown in Mexico. He might come up with an interesting mix of ideas.

seraphim74 · Jun 21, 2006

Originally posted by Berra
Patton was not just a good armour comander, he was a good cavalery man and a unconventional warrior as he shown in Mexico. He might come up with an interesting mix of ideas.

First, in Poland there is quite different terrain than in Mexico. Patton's experience couldn't be too helpful in well populated area, with many roads, woods, villages and rivers. Especially against tanks and airplanes.
Second, Polish cavalry commanders had usually more combat experience than Patton (they were veterans of WWI and Polish-Bolshevik War in 1920), so I don't think he could teach them any new cavalry tactics they didn't know.
Third, even if Patton gave them some ideas, the age of cavalry was over. Perhaps Poland would fight longer, but without help from western allies Poles had no chance against Wehrmacht and later, Red Army.

And one more thing, Poland had only 11 cavalry brigades and some divisional squadrons - all together no more than 60 000 soldiers, while whole Polish Army had about 1 000 000 men. (Poles managed to mobilize only about 60-70% of their forces). Only force small in numbers yet powerfull enough to make a real difference was...German Panzertruppen.

Trotsky · Jun 22, 2006

I don't see what Patton being in Poland in the late 30s could have done to change anything. He would have no influence there, and his experiences would pale in comparison to the leaders who had fought in the Great War and the Polish-Soviet War. It took the 1939 and 1940 campaigns to convince his own government of the need for armored forces, so why would a foreign government listen to him before it was so painfully learned?

Berra · Jun 23, 2006

The Mexican incident I was refering to was when Patton and his men took civilian clothes and went killing Pancho Villas general. And he was an early champion of blixtkrig

Otis Tarda · Jun 23, 2006

Trotsky said:
I don't see what Patton being in Poland in the late 30s could have done to change anything. He would have no influence there, and his experiences would pale in comparison to the leaders who had fought in the Great War and the Polish-Soviet War. It took the 1939 and 1940 campaigns to convince his own government of the need for armored forces, so why would a foreign government listen to him before it was so painfully learned?

Actually, I dare to say that Polish commanders could give Patton some advices about manoeuvring war; after all, Polish-Bolshevik war was one.
But, you seems to forgot that there was at least one factor, which was trully innovative in Blitzkrieg: air forces, which was very efficient, and, in a way pivotal to German succeses in Poland and in France.

I wonder whether cavalaryman as Patton was could notice that, and made adequate conclussions.

Trotsky · Jun 23, 2006

Berra said:
The Mexican incident I was refering to was when Patton and his men took civilian clothes and went killing Pancho Villas general. And he was an early champion of blixtkrig

Yes, he was an early champion of movement warfare, but you're talking about sending him to a foreign country and advising its government on the doctrine before it was ever established that the doctrine could work as well as it did, or work at all.

Would Patton even be looking at Germany if he was in Poland. What would stop him from urging a drive to the east, toward Moscow and Kiev?

NapoleonXIV · Jun 23, 2006

Patton couldn't do anything to help Poland but he could observe, and take all he learned back to France.

At the time there was a lively debate as to the role of tanks in the next war. Patton could point out how Guderian's theories worked in actuality and considerably strengthen the arguments of Liddell Hart in England and deGaulle in France.

IIRC, Blitzkrieg is easily countered, if you know how and have the proper equipment, which is other tanks and artillery.

And France had the most and best tanks in Europe, at the time.

Trotsky · Jun 23, 2006

NapoleonXIV said:
IIRC, Blitzkrieg is easily countered, if you know how and have the proper equipment, which is other tanks and artillery.

Lots of other tanks and artillery, and lots of field fortifications -- basically, a massive defense-in-depth, such as the one that stopped Operation Citadel in its tracks. Excellent air superiority comes in handy, too.

Berra · Jun 24, 2006

I'm sorry if I offend the Polish, I'm sure they had some great military thinkers. My one take on stopping Blixtkrieg is going after the logistics and blowing up much infrastructure. Hide in an bush and let the tanks pass, then kill the horses or trucks following.

seraphim74 · Jun 24, 2006

Originally posted by Berra
I'm sorry if I offend the Polish, I'm sure they had some great military thinkers. My one take on stopping Blixtkrieg is going after the logistics and blowing up much infrastructure. Hide in an bush and let the tanks pass, then kill the horses or trucks following.

The trouble with letting the tanks pass and attack "horses and tracks" is that in the same time tanks do the same to you; however they are fast enought to crush your logistics, then come back to fight you.
Another thing, the German army attacking Poland was not so mechanized as many people think; Germans had not only more tanks but (what is more important) they used them in big, concentrated masses - that's why the Blitzkrieg was so effective. And they had also a lot of infantry, that went into the gaps made by tanks. So even if the Poles let the tanks pass, they would have had to fight German infantry, with German tanks shooting them in the back. Besides, the invasion of Poland was the first Blitzkrieg of the modern age, so there was no time to invent an efective counterstrategy.
However I have to admit, that Polish HQ could have done much better.

Trotsky · Jun 25, 2006

I think, actually, that Case Yellow in 1940 was the first real blitzkrieg in history -- where the Wehrmacht implemented what they had learned from Case White the autumn before.

Berra · Jun 25, 2006

An attacker in an blixkrieg needs more supplies and every unit don't go behind enemy lines.

But I got the coolest idea. Patton teams up with whoever and do a rerun of the MMexican campain. He dresses up in civilian clothes and capture Göring, strap him to the hood of his car. Patton ends up in the OSS or gets borrowed by the SOE.

NapoleonXIV · Jun 25, 2006

Berra said:
I'm sorry if I offend the Polish, I'm sure they had some great military thinkers. My one take on stopping Blixtkrieg is going after the logistics and blowing up much infrastructure. Hide in an bush and let the tanks pass, then kill the horses or trucks following.

IIRC that was the French strategy between the wars and in 1940 to deal with tanks. They wanted the infantry to go to ground, "like mice" and then rise back up behind them.

The problem with that is as has been outlined.