Rearm poland Infantry for WWII

The challenge is starting from the mid 1920s rearm and reform the polish army so it can defeat the German and/or Soviet armies in ww2 or at the very least make the polish defeat a pyrrhic victory for Poland enemies.
 

Deleted member 1487

The challenge is starting from the mid 1920s rearm and reform the polish army so it can defeat the German and/or Soviet armies in ww2 or at the very least make the polish defeat a pyrrhic victory for Poland enemies.
Not sure there is a good way given Poland's economic issues, the simple fact of being so much smaller and weaker than her neighbors, and having bigger issues than infantry equipment. I'd say for starters have them mobilize fully before the war starts, say through not listening to Britain to demobilize to avoid stoking tensions.
 
The Poles also sold off some military gear for cash.
And it wasn't the Polish infantry that was lacking, it was their armed forces as a whole.

Their air forces was far too small to resist the Luftwaffe and once their air force goes down, it's pretty much a shooting/bombing range for the Luftwaffe.

Polish navy already achieved the best result in OTL, OP Peking succeeds, a few Polish subs also get out. If they stayed and fought it would have been a massacre, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine assets would have annihilated them.
 
Last edited:
A polish equivalent to a bazooka/panzerfaust? Also, what are the anti-tank capabilities of light mortars at the time?
That seems like entirely hindsight speaking. Even up to the beginning of the war Anti-Tank rifles were able to actually damage tanks, hence the Schurtzen sp?. Why would they develop something that isn't needed except for we know that guns will quickly become large to actually defeat tank armor.
 
Poland had quite effective anti-tank rifle - Karabin przeciwpancerny wzór 35, capable of dealing with all German tanks in 1939. However, they kept the rifle so secret, that when soldiers were given those weapons, they had problems with using them. While shooting the rifle was easy, it was pretty much the same as a regular rifle, there was no established tactics to use them and soldiers were not told how the weapon actually worked. They somettimes shot many times at the same tank (which was still moving) unaware that they already eliminated its crew (the bullet would would cause spalling on the interior of the armor plate, hitting the crew and internal installations). There was also a limited number of those rifles (about 3500).
Poland in 1939 was also testing a new semi automatic rifle - Karabin samopowtarzalny wzór 38M (Kbsp wz.38M ), comparable to US M1 Garand. If introduced earlier, it would somewhat increase firepower of the Polish infantry.
However, I do not think that any relatively realistic change in weapons of the Polish infrantry would seriously change the Polish campaign of 1939. IOTL Polish infantry was armed relatively well - they "only" lacked artillery support, tank support, anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons , good communications etc. Polish Army had some modern and very good equipment, but not enough.
 
Last edited:
The Polish economy just isn't big enough for then to have a big enough military to out fight either the German or the USSR .

The obvious option is for the Polish government to align closely with a more powerful county. France is the obvious choice given what was to happen although an argument for Germany could also be made as the Poles would have no idea of the evil lurking in the Nazi leadership pre war. Such an alliance would enable the Poles to obtain more modern equipment or build it through generous licences. It would also erode the assumption that the West would not fight for Poland. This would potentially create more time for the West to rearm.

The other option is the much stated "sane" deployment of the Polish army away from the frontiers and calling up its reserves earlier.

Training is often overlooked. If there's only a little bit more money than this is an area that could bring the biggest dividends. Fully implementing established ideas like combined arms to all ranks of the army would improve combat performance much more than a slightly better rifle or LMG. If there a bit more cash left after this then its half decent raidios for the army all day long.

The air force is in a pickle. It's just not big enough or has good enough planes to stand for long against its enemies. Although dispersal from main airfields could have kept more planes in the fight for longer. Again the best defence is to have friends to attack elsewhere to take the pressure off.
 
Training is often overlooked. If there's only a little bit more money than this is an area that could bring the biggest dividends. Fully implementing established ideas like combined arms to all ranks of the army would improve combat performance much more than a slightly better rifle or LMG. If there a bit more cash left after this then its half decent raidios for the army all day long.
The question is what sort of training. The 1930's is a period of change in the world's militaries as the gradually move towards mechanisation. Do you concentrate the training budget on the rapidly dating current equipment you actually have or on preparing for the new technology you have very little of? Both options have advantages and disadvantages and if you get the mix wrong then you face ruin.
 
The Poles could make their LMGs better quite easily. Their Browning wz.28 light machine guns were generally a good design but could be improved in some aspects. For example they could have designed a quick change barrel for their Browing wz.28 light machine guns to improve it's sustained fire capability. The Swedes made pretty clever and simple QCB system for their Kg m/37 Browning light machine guns. Infact if I remember correctly they even converted some earlier m/21 pattern guns to have QCB-s. The bipod that the Poles adopted for the wz.28 was not that great. It was too flimsy and could easily collapse in the wrong moment. Perhaps copy the better bipod design from the Czech ZB-26. Also the Poles could have started the production of submachine guns earlier.
 
The Poles could make their LMGs better quite easily. Their Browning wz.28 light machine guns were generally a good design but could be improved in some aspects. For example they could have designed a quick change barrel for their Browing wz.28 light machine guns to improve it's sustained fire capability. The Swedes made pretty clever and simple QCB system for their Kg m/37 Browning light machine guns. Infact if I remember correctly they even converted some earlier m/21 pattern guns to have QCB-s. The bipod that the Poles adopted for the wz.28 was not that great. It was too flimsy and could easily collapse in the wrong moment. Perhaps copy the better bipod design from the Czech ZB-26. Also the Poles could have started the production of submachine guns earlier.
For starters there could be more than one for a squad of nineteen.

Poland should have cut the peacetime army size and spend more on armaments throughout the thirties.
 
That seems like entirely hindsight speaking. Even up to the beginning of the war Anti-Tank rifles were able to actually damage tanks, hence the Schurtzen sp?. Why would they develop something that isn't needed except for we know that guns will quickly become large to actually defeat tank armor.
Artillery, assault guns and anti-tank guns are expensive
A man portable rocket launcher is a cheap way to get firepower
 
Artillery, assault guns and anti-tank guns are expensive
A man portable rocket launcher is a cheap way to get firepower
Yes but it still requires recognizing the need for a development beyond anti-tank rifles before there actually is one. At the time Poland was invaded the anti-tank rifles in use by all sides could deal with pretty much all of the tanks deployed by all sides except for some of the rarer heavy tanks that weren't really available to anyone in large numbers.
 
Top