AHC: Improve the Polish performance in 1939

Deleted member 1487

a weapon who only has 20 rounds and is longer to reload than others isn't a great LMG (or automatic weapon like you said) IMHO. But I digress.
So a modified ZB 26 could be a nice start and a start which could lead to greater collaboration between Poland and Czechoslovakia for designing and producing weapons, again a solution which leads Poland to find cost-effective solutions for its armament. Which (relatively cheap) weapons Poland could have with friendlier Czechs? Except for tanks of course (several dozens LT 34 or 35 could not hurt).
Well, the USMC is doing it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle
And the Soviets did something similar in the 1960s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPK
The issue is the US and everyone else pre-WW2 was using full power service rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds, but it was the standard model; the Germans were outside of the norm with their GPMG.
Here is the French answer to the BAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_24/29_light_machine_gun
The Czech ZB-26/30 was in the same category.
The Bren gun was a modified ZB-30.
The US used the BAR. The Swedes used a modified BAR. The Belgians used a modified BAR. The Soviets used the pan-fed DP-28:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degtyaryov_machine_gun

So yeah, you'd have to have the Poles want to use Czech arms and even test them in the first place, then decide they need that modification. Only the Germans were interested in belt fed LMGs at the time. I think magazines were considered more reliable for ammo feeding, since no one else apparently had devised as system that worked as well as the MG34/42 one (the Belgians copied it post-war for the FN MAG, while the Brits tried to belt feed the Bren gun with their own system and failed pretty spectacularly). So you'd need to get the Czechs to even want to adapt their gun to a belt feeding system, as they would have to change the production line to create a top feed belt system or help the Poles set up their own.
 
ZB 30? You mean the slightly modified ZB 26? Would it not need at least slightly more decent relationship with the Czechs?


Good point. But could the Poles have a better plan (in terms of strategy and doctrine). And if yes, which one?

PS: Did you possess a bibliography I could find on the net (articles, books I could download) on the subject?
Czechoslovakia was selling weapons to Poland anyway at some point. Avia I believe have some factory in Poland manufacturing engines. Avia was also manufacturer of HS 12Y engine however I believe they were not allowed to re sell it. Not 100% sure though.
 
Funny how Gamelin is everyone's personal nightmare on this forum... More seriously, IMHO, the Saar option isn't a ideal solution but could indeed buy some time. However, I would prefer something different to the "Mata-Hari option". Plausibility and all that stuff ;)

It should be remembered that the Germans had the overwhelming majority of their divisions engaged against Poland. I don't think the french army would have bursted through carboard or anything but any attack en masse would mean that the germans have to get back a sizable part of the forces they need to blitz through quickly. Add that to an early mobilisation (with the polish air force not destroyed on the ground) and while it might not be enough for a victory it could last for some long months with pretty sizable looses for the Germans.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

It should be remembered that the Germans had the overwhelming majority of their divisions engaged against Poland. On don't think the french army would have bursted through carboard or anything but any attack en masse would mean that the germans have to get back a sizable part of the forces they need to blitz through quickly. Add that to an early mobilisation (with the polish air force not destroyed on the ground) and while it might not be enough for a victory it could last for some long months with pretty sizable looses for the Germans.
The situation was that they couldn't attack en masse due to the outdated mobilization system, while they ran into a bunch of minefields, which slowed the advance and frontage they could advance on.
 
Well, the USMC is doing it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle
And the Soviets did something similar in the 1960s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPK
The issue is the US and everyone else pre-WW2 was using full power service rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds, but it was the standard model; the Germans were outside of the norm with their GPMG.
Here is the French answer to the BAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_24/29_light_machine_gun
The Czech ZB-26/30 was in the same category.
The Bren gun was a modified ZB-30.
The US used the BAR. The Swedes used a modified BAR. The Belgians used a modified BAR. The Soviets used the pan-fed DP-28:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degtyaryov_machine_gun

So yeah, you'd have to have the Poles want to use Czech arms and even test them in the first place, then decide they need that modification. Only the Germans were interested in belt fed LMGs at the time. I think magazines were considered more reliable for ammo feeding, since no one else apparently had devised as system that worked as well as the MG34/42 one (the Belgians copied it post-war for the FN MAG, while the Brits tried to belt feed the Bren gun with their own system and failed pretty spectacularly). So you'd need to get the Czechs to even want to adapt their gun to a belt feeding system, as they would have to change the production line to create a top feed belt system or help the Poles set up their own.
You're quoting weapons with 25-30 rounds and even 47 (except for the ZB 26) with a top magazine and thus much easier to reload than a BAR. But again I digress. Anyway, I think that a ZB 26 would be better (and cheaper) than a modified BAR. If poles decide in a plausible to try the German system of a belt-fed GPMG, all the better.

Czechoslovakia was selling weapons to Poland anyway at some point. Avia I believe have some factory in Poland manufacturing engines. Avia was also manufacturer of HS 12Y engine however I believe they were not allowed to re sell it. Not 100% sure though.
Money has no smell or origin isn't it. Avia is a good idea: more fighters is always welcome.

The situation was that they couldn't attack en masse due to the outdated mobilization system, while they ran into a bunch of minefields, which slowed the advance and frontage they could advance on.
the point is nonetheless that the Saar option (even a failed one) could at least divert some divisions and could help, even a little, Poland, thus improving its performance.
 
The situation was that they couldn't attack en masse due to the outdated mobilization system, while they ran into a bunch of minefields, which slowed the advance and frontage they could advance on.

That's exagerated, even with an outdated mobilisation system they had a month and five days until Poland feel, likely more ITTL. In even a fraction of that time the french could get several time the number of divisions the german left there and therefore more then compensate for the Siegfried line, slow mobilisation nonetheless.
 

Driftless

Donor
The existing Polish fighter aircraft were on the wrong side of the technology curve; usable, but obsolescent. Any diplomatic chance of buying Hurricanes from the British, or MS.406's from the French? Again, that's obsolescent planes, but a decided step ahead in capabilities.

Or, shorten up the development process for the PZL.50 Jastrub? It was designed in 1936, and went through a drawn out development cycle, not getting to useful prototype state till mid-1939 (engines and landing gear delays). Aviation technology was changing very quickly at that point in time, so the PZL.50 was no world beater, but it should have been an improvement. Perhaps an alternative design incorporating the H.S. inline engines as Tomo Pauk had originally recommended.
 
Last edited:
I think you're mistaking the pzl 24 (a fighter) with the pzl 23 (the bomber).
so 3pdr Vickers. Good idea.

I was a bit harsh on the P.24, but still think a low-wing monopane will be superior to a wigh-wing one with braces all around.

...
The PZL.37 Los was a very modern, high performance twin-engine bomber, with it's successor already in the design pipeline when the invasion came. The Poles had some good plans in that regard, but not enough planes & pilots compared to the Germans. Even more importantly, seriously in-sufficient fighters; from both capability and numbers.

The Los was the equivalent of the Blenheim - any decent fighter of 1939 will trash it. HS-12Y will 'buy' some speed, though it is questionable how much. I agree with the rest

...
No, it was an automatic rifle, like a BAR or Chauchat and in fact inspired by the Chauchat. It was only issued to 1 soldier per squad and fired a full power bolt action rifle cartridge, just the weakest of the bunch. Fyodorov in fact wanted to use an even more powerful 6.5mm round of his own design, but was prevented by the war from introducing it; as the Russians already had plenty of Arisaka round and rifles lying around and were buying more from the Japanese to make up for their own shortages it only made sense to use. Avtomat was a term invented by Fyodorov that later came to mean assault rifle, but originally meant something like light hand held machine gun, aka an automatic rifle...aka a SAW.

It was even employed as a bipod and there was an assistant gunner/ammo carrier. It was also only about 30% cheaper than a Madsen LMG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

It was not an assault rifle, it was in fact too powerful to qualify. Regardless, it was also extremely complicated to make and maintain and Fyodorov moved beyond the design post-war, as both he and his protege Degtyarov, inventor of the DP-28, which partially grew out of their work trying to develop the Avtomat after WW1.

I'll not enter the debate on the price and nomenclature, just want to have Polish infantry with more firepower. With 15+ years of advance, Polish can try and make a simpler and cheaper version themselves.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're quoting weapons with 25-30 rounds and even 47 (except for the ZB 26) with a top magazine and thus much easier to reload than a BAR. But again I digress. Anyway, I think that a ZB 26 would be better (and cheaper) than a modified BAR. If poles decide in a plausible to try the German system of a belt-fed GPMG, all the better.
I know, fundamentally they weren't that different in concept even if they had a few extra rounds. How do you get them to realize they'd even need a belt feeding system for a LMG/SAW, especially when no one but the Germans thought it was necessary?
The question is though why did the Poles chose the BAR IOTL over even bothering to test the ZB-26?

the point is nonetheless that the Saar option (even a failed one) could at least divert some divisions and could help, even a little, Poland, thus improving its performance.
My point was that no actually it would not because they could be delayed with minefields enough to buy time to finish Poland. Of course the French might have persisted in their OTL more limited offensive if Poland held out better and the Soviets held off their intervention to gauge Germany's chances.

I'll not enter the debate on the price and nomenclature, just want to have Polish infantry with more firepower. With 15+ years of advance, Polish can try and make a simpler and cheaper version themselves.
That's the thing, everyone that looked at it said it wasn't worth it and no one had the concept of an actual assault rife until the German StG44. Even if arguably the Avtomat was capable of serving as one with development (which I BTW agree with...if they had the right concept and kind of did a tear down of the weapon and started over...also adopting a less powerful cartridge. I started a thread on another board about this that got little interest), the concept of such a weapon didn't exist anywhere in the world until WW2. Then there is the issue of developing and intermediate cartridge, which AFAIK only the Germans actually did pre-war, and having non-standard ammo, which especially the small countries did not want to invest in; in fact part of the reason for the Soviets dumping any further 6.5mm development that Fyodorov was making was not wanting to have non-standard calibers in circulation. If the USSR couldn't afford that, Poland also could not. They probably would have a hard time even having something like 7.92 Kurz in separate production; even the Germans weren't able to get that into anywhere near needed levels of production during WW2 and were actually producing more rifles than ammo for them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're quoting weapons with 25-30 rounds and even 47 (except for the ZB 26) with a top magazine and thus much easier to reload than a BAR. But again I digress. Anyway, I think that a ZB 26 would be better (and cheaper) than a modified BAR. If poles decide in a plausible to try the German system of a belt-fed GPMG, all the better.


Money has no smell or origin isn't it. Avia is a good idea: more fighters is always welcome.


the point is nonetheless that the Saar option (even a failed one) could at least divert some divisions and could help, even a little, Poland, thus improving its performance.
Well in mid 20-ties and early 30-ties relations were pretty moderate. Czechoslovak army command but I believe also Polish was pushing for more cooperation and integration. So it was not just about the money. Both countries used leftovers of A-H armies, Poles I guess also Russian. Both swithed to Mauser rifle and manufactured it. I believe in 20-ties Poland bought certain amount of Avia fighter planes.
 
I was a bit harsh on the P.24, but still think a low-wing monopane will be superior to a wigh-wing one with braces all around.

.
The idea is to find better equipment for the Poles but also an equipment which can be affordable and easy to produce. The P.24, undoubtly inferior to a BF 109, is still better than a P.11 and already designed/ready to be build (and having the same performances than a Gladiator btw). If some Czech Avia fighters can be added, you can have a decent fighter force. Not a great one, but a decent one. IF you can also have some better modern fighters (hurricanes for example), all the better of course.
 
I know, fundamentally they weren't that different in concept even if they had a few extra rounds. How do you get them to realize they'd even need a belt feeding system for a LMG/SAW, especially when no one but the Germans thought it was necessary?
The question is though why did the Poles chose the BAR IOTL over even bothering to test the ZB-26?


My point was that no actually it would not because they could be delayed with minefields enough to buy time to finish Poland. Of course the French might have persisted in their OTL more limited offensive if Poland held out better and the Soviets held off their intervention to gauge Germany's chances.
I dunno why the poles would have developped a belt-fed system. But if you can find a plausible scenario to make them so, it would be great. Same thing for the zb 26.
Minefields don't stop a progression at all. It can slow down the troops but without sufficient infantry and fortifications, it's not enough. But we agree that a Saar Offensive won't be a cakewalk (and yes the French staff isn't the boldest of the world in 1939). But a limited progression, not enough to be decisive but enough to worry the Germans can always help. And if the Poles hold longer and thus motivate the French a bit more in their (still limited) offensive, there we're on something.
 

Deleted member 1487

I dunno why the poles would have developped a belt-fed system. But if you can find a plausible scenario to make them so, it would be great. Same thing for the zb 26.
Minefields don't stop a progression at all. It can slow down the troops but without sufficient infantry and fortifications, it's not enough. But we agree that a Saar Offensive won't be a cakewalk (and yes the French staff isn't the boldest of the world in 1939). But a limited progression, not enough to be decisive but enough to worry the Germans can always help. And if the Poles hold longer and thus motivate the French a bit more in their (still limited) offensive, there we're on something.
That's the problem, I cannot think of a reason for them to consider this. Arguably the Germans were wrong to make a GPMG in LMG with belt feed due to the weight of the system compared to say the Polish BAR. The MG34 weighed 12kg empty and was quite expensive and tough to make, while the Polish BAR was 5.6kg or so empty and much cheaper and easier to make. It heated much more slowly, arguably was more accurate so wasted less ammo, and was a much better offensive weapon, as more ammo could be carried and spare barrels needed. For a small country like Poland it was prefect for it's cheapness and reliability, plus their offensive mindset. The German MG systems were more suited to defensive warfare give how hard it would be to lug all that extra weight around.
 
The idea is to find better equipment for the Poles but also an equipment which can be affordable and easy to produce. The P.24, undoubtly inferior to a BF 109, is still better than a P.11 and already designed/ready to be build (and having the same performances than a Gladiator btw). If some Czech Avia fighters can be added, you can have a decent fighter force. Not a great one, but a decent one. IF you can also have some better modern fighters (hurricanes for example), all the better of course.

There is nothing mind-blowing about HS 12 engines, nor with low-wing monoplanes, even in early 1930s. Gladiator was another 'why, just why go with biplane when monoplanes are in service??'. Thus as sooner we have a mondern-ish fighter Made In Poland, the better.
 
Quick look into wiki suggests that 37 mm Bofors was a better weapon: higher muzzle velocity, better range, and less than 2/3 weight of Vickers

The 47mm Vickers fired a 1.5 kg projectile - twice the weight of Bofors projectile. Range for AA job was 2000 yds, thus I'd still go with Vickers.
 
That's the problem, I cannot think of a reason for them to consider this. Arguably the Germans were wrong to make a GPMG in LMG with belt feed due to the weight of the system compared to say the Polish BAR. The MG34 weighed 12kg empty and was quite expensive and tough to make, while the Polish BAR was 5.6kg or so empty and much cheaper and easier to make. It heated much more slowly, arguably was more accurate so wasted less ammo, and was a much better offensive weapon, as more ammo could be carried and spare barrels needed. For a small country like Poland it was prefect for it's cheapness and reliability, plus their offensive mindset. The German MG systems were more suited to defensive warfare give how hard it would be to lug all that extra weight around.
So for you a modified BAR or like is the better solution for a country with limited ressources like Poland.

There is nothing mind-blowing about HS 12 engines, nor with low-wing monoplanes, even in early 1930s. Gladiator was another 'why, just why go with biplane when monoplanes are in service??'. Thus as sooner we have a mondern-ish fighter Made In Poland, the better.
so which fighter could be designed in the mid 30's in Poland for a reasonable cost?
 
The existing Polish fighter aircraft were on the wrong side of the technology curve; usable, but obsolescent. Any diplomatic chance of buying Hurricanes from the British, or MS.406's from the French? Again, that's obsolescent planes, but a decided step ahead in capabilities.

.

Poland requested some modern and modernish fighters from France. First batch was even send to Poland in last days of August, but Romanians refused to unload them and they eventually ended in Turkey.
 

Deleted member 1487

So for you a modified BAR or like is the better solution for a country with limited ressources like Poland.
I'm trying to figure out why they preferred the BAR, which would impact getting them to go a different route than IOTL. It seems they were very happy with their OTL BAR and it's modifications. Cost and weight were certainly factors, but so was doctrine. The Swedes and Belgians had the same ideas and needs and both used modified BARs. The question is how do you get them to take away many of the major benefits of the system: low weight, cost, lack of complexity/ease of manufacturing/ease of operation, to turning it into a belt fed/quick change barrel system?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_wz._1928
There were also extensive works on spare, replaceable barrels for the weapon, which however were never completed due to the outbreak of World War II.
So it looks like they were adding in some barrels for changing, but the war happened before they could finish.

I'm guessing cost was a huge constraint, because I'm not even seeing them having fielded a medium machine gun.

Edit:
We could find all sorts of army weapons improvements if cost wasn't a concern, but unless OP is suggesting we ignore that we've got a straightjacket on what we can do in terms of type and amount of equipment. The Poles might have done about as well as they could given the constraints of budget and doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatnik_wz._36
In terms of the above weapon, I think the Poles would have been better off with the Japanese Type 89 Grenade discharger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top