Remington 2.0
Banned
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 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.
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.A polish equivalent to a bazooka/panzerfaust? Also, what are the anti-tank capabilities of light mortars at the time?
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.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.
For starters there could be more than one for a squad of nineteen.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.
Which exactly light mortar had ever anti tank capabilities?Also, what are the anti-tank capabilities of light mortars at the time?
Artillery, assault guns and anti-tank guns are expensiveThat 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.
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.Artillery, assault guns and anti-tank guns are expensive
A man portable rocket launcher is a cheap way to get firepower