I dont see why poland is so strong because it got its ass kicked in like a month by germany but in the game they got a pretty good army.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well the polish army was not that bad. Infact where on even footing with german units they did manage to win a few battles and even manage a small counter attack into east prussia. The thing that killed the polish was that there tanks where mainly tankletts and there airforce was destoryed the first day of the war.
Red_Coats said:
Actually its pretty historic. The Poles had a fairly big army in Pozan and were enveloped by the German blitz while being worked over by bombers historically. In my game I dusted the Poles in a few weeks with my 33 ground units (including 9 tanks & 24 infantry) vs their 81 (5 tanks plus other rubbish) cause I made good use of interdiction and strat bombing infrastructure (on very hard level).
Poland had something like 1.5 million standing army...but was antiquated in both tactics and equipment....There was no shortage od bravery, but that was not enough.
I didn't notice Poland being all that strong in my first game - they fell in about 18 days.
TaskForce58 said:
Ya, and I forgot to mention, historically Germany left nothing but skimpy border guard units on the western front and the french could have marched in and put Germany down without a sweat. I learned this from Manteuffel's book about panzer tactics.
Poles had a rather enormous army. They fielded 1 million plus. Seriously. A number of problems cropped up for them
1) Determination to deploy directly at the front. With their most vaulable coal and industrial regions near the border they felt obligated to protect those regions. This combined with
2) Poor mobility (except for their excellent cavalry which, though to preserve mobility, carried even less heavy equipment then the Infantry) with zero modern tanks and few obsolete ones at that as well as nothing in the way of motorized transportation lead to
3) Large encirclements within the first few days of combat. Germany wasnt incredibly mobile at the time either contrary to propoganda but
4) The concept of a column of attack to pentrate and then dispersion to cause confusion in the rear areas, severing supply and communications was novel (it had been anticipated at the end of World War I but never followed up by the leading military commanders in the allied nations after the war). The Poles may have had fully formed divisions still at the Front line but with zero communication with each other 20 divisions are equal to one. Any sort of counterattack couldnt be coordinated without communications, consquently 20 divisions acted individually alone. And therefore had zero effect. The story is told of a Polish commander given command of 4 divisions in southwestern Poland, took him a week to make it from Warsaw and find even elements of just two. But yet they still managed localized success with the one Polish counterattack (largely because only that one Polish Army commander whose name i cant recall managed to maintan any cohesiveness in his army), but it was a drop in the bucket by that point and time. A big reason for this disruption was
5) Polish airforce was small, antiquated, and wiped out on the ground the first day. Thereafter the Polish units which lacked any competent AA equipment werre further harrassed by air.
The game represents this well so far as I can tell. The Poles have tons of infantry divisions, but all are fairly poorly equipped against modern units, ie low Hard Attack, 100% softness, low toughness, low Air Defense and Attack. Combine this with a low organization (poor tactics) and they generally crack and retreat without much of a fight. I had Warsaw surrounded with 36 divisions in it by the 20th of Sept. I pounded it with air for a few days and then with just 30 German divisions took the city in a 3 hour fire fight. I took minimal losses throughout the campigain (which sucked in some ways, I got crap for experience).
Red_Coats said:
The Poles held out longer than the French. Not only did they hold out longer than the French they did so against longer odds, and with the "betrayal" of the USSR collapsing their rear areas. I am betting with the French TO&E well E anyway the Poles would have jammed up the Germans long enough to get aid.
sven10077 said:
No, they didn't. Unless you count the Free Polish divisions Britain armed, but then you are still incorrect because you would have to count the Free French divisions America armed then.
If I am not totally wrong the Polish campaign took a bit more than 3 weeks, (with the last positions surrendering only after more than a month).
The French campaign lasts from the 10. May to 22. June (with all hostilities stopped at the 25.)
So the French campaign lasted a bit longer.
The French campaign lasts from the 10. May to 22. June (with all hostilities stopped at the 25.)
So the French campaign lasted a bit longer.
Bossemanden said:
I think Warsaw surrendered around the 29th of Sept, so approximately 4 weeks. And yes the French campigain lasted about 6 weeks. So the French held out for 50% longer! ; )
My mistake, since French waiters were rude likely into 1941 they were "maintaining hostilities".
I could try to weasel out of it by stating that the Poles offered an effective resistance longer than the French forces and hardly be incorrect, but I'll refrain.
Who amongst us could forget the rousing spectacle of General Weygand essentially capitulating on the 12th through the 14th?
"er uh geee mon ami I think paris should be open..."
but again my mistake the French were 'giving as good as they got and not in TOTAL collapse until at LEAST the 16th.....
http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/western-europe/western-europe-index-1940.htm
by the way the French/German surrender negotiations began in earnest on the 21st....but since they didn't formalize it until 13:35 on the 25th I'll concede the point.
Good thing the Char B-1 had three gears in reverse.
I could try to weasel out of it by stating that the Poles offered an effective resistance longer than the French forces and hardly be incorrect, but I'll refrain.
Who amongst us could forget the rousing spectacle of General Weygand essentially capitulating on the 12th through the 14th?
"er uh geee mon ami I think paris should be open..."
but again my mistake the French were 'giving as good as they got and not in TOTAL collapse until at LEAST the 16th.....
http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/western-europe/western-europe-index-1940.htm
by the way the French/German surrender negotiations began in earnest on the 21st....but since they didn't formalize it until 13:35 on the 25th I'll concede the point.
Good thing the Char B-1 had three gears in reverse.
What a crock! The final Polish defenders surrendered October 6 when they ran out of ammunition, 5 weeks after the invasion. Had the Poles not been invaded from the other side by the Soviets, then no doubt that in the forests of the east they would have held out even longer as the Germans would have lost their Panzer edge. In the few all infantry battles, the Poles won every one as the average Polish soldier was better than the average German one. Not out of any great reasoning, just that the Poles had such crappy equipment on the whole, that they needed better training to make up for it. Same with the pilots, who were among the best trained in Europe to make up someway for the deficiencies in their machines. People forget that the Germans weren't particularly good in weapons or experience at the beginning of the war, it was their combined arms tactics that made them revolutionary.
Poland is hardly overpowered. The other posters that mention the stupid tactic of defending borders(a political decision fought by the military) and the Soviet attack are correct. There was such confusion that many Polish units thought that the Soviets were coming to help and didn't fight them. Another thing was that despite having a large army, only half was mobilised as the Polish government was told by its dubious allies not to provoke Hitler by a full mobilisation. As a result, thousands were then killed by German bombers at railway stations when war broke out in mid mobilisation!
Sad to see that the lie about the Polish airforce being destroyed on the ground on the first day still finds a place here. Fact is that many aircraft were destroyed, but many more dispersed and fought back. The obsolete PZL-11c shot down around 126 German planes including around 30 BF-109's, while only losing 24 in the air in exchange. The rest were bombed or destroyed by crews on the ground.
The Polish 7TP tank was the equal of anything the Germans had at the time, just that they had just 150 of them and their piecemeal use meant that big bugger all.
France had 8 more months to prepare and digest German Blitzkrieg, they could mobilise leisurely and without problems. They had more of everything than the Germans; tanks, men, aircraft with the British, Belgians and Dutch as well. They had every advantage that the Poles didn't get, and they didn't face a rear attack from the Soviets as well.
YET France, Belgium, Netherlands and the BEF were swatted away totally with no remaining resistance JUST 1 WEEK LONGER than Poland!
Poland is hardly overpowered. The other posters that mention the stupid tactic of defending borders(a political decision fought by the military) and the Soviet attack are correct. There was such confusion that many Polish units thought that the Soviets were coming to help and didn't fight them. Another thing was that despite having a large army, only half was mobilised as the Polish government was told by its dubious allies not to provoke Hitler by a full mobilisation. As a result, thousands were then killed by German bombers at railway stations when war broke out in mid mobilisation!
Sad to see that the lie about the Polish airforce being destroyed on the ground on the first day still finds a place here. Fact is that many aircraft were destroyed, but many more dispersed and fought back. The obsolete PZL-11c shot down around 126 German planes including around 30 BF-109's, while only losing 24 in the air in exchange. The rest were bombed or destroyed by crews on the ground.
The Polish 7TP tank was the equal of anything the Germans had at the time, just that they had just 150 of them and their piecemeal use meant that big bugger all.
France had 8 more months to prepare and digest German Blitzkrieg, they could mobilise leisurely and without problems. They had more of everything than the Germans; tanks, men, aircraft with the British, Belgians and Dutch as well. They had every advantage that the Poles didn't get, and they didn't face a rear attack from the Soviets as well.
YET France, Belgium, Netherlands and the BEF were swatted away totally with no remaining resistance JUST 1 WEEK LONGER than Poland!
sven10077 said:
There were a lot of reasons for the French collapse, not least among them was the complete demoralization of having to "fight the same war again" against Germany. You remember the First World War right? Where France suffered more losses per capita then any other nation? Where they had all of Northern France turned into a giant civil engineering project? Yeah that war. They did ok there.
No denying the French DID collapse, but many French units went on to have distingushed and brave service alongside the allies (as well as many Polish units).
Im considering the fall of Warsaw to be the end of organized resistance even if individual units continued to fight.
A completely perposterous assumption that any individual solider was superior to the other and reeks of shallow nationalism at best. Both armies were well trained and well disciplined. The German units were very well lead as were many Polish units. To suggest the polish solider was "better" on average then a German one is not merely unprovable but without basis entirely.
Assuming your figures are correct of only 24 lost in the air that means that 303 of 425 planes were destroyed on the ground. Thats close to 75%. That, to me, means largely destroyed on the ground.
The Germans deployed some 3100 tanks, mostly PzIs and PzIIs. While the 7TP did have a 37mm cannon and therefore was capable of destroying the PzI's and II's, 132 is just not enough.
You are quite defensive for having not a single person disparge Polish courage and tenacity.
Well said Sven10077! 
I tried to refrain from such jibes however true in order to make my post more objective, but you did superbly Did you also know that the Renault-35 talk had thicker armour at the back than at the front?(Insert cowarly French Joke here)
I tried to refrain from such jibes however true in order to make my post more objective, but you did superbly Did you also know that the Renault-35 talk had thicker armour at the back than at the front?(Insert cowarly French Joke here) 
The poles did disperse the planes and saved them from destruction the problem was that co-ordinating the fighters became rather difficult which reduced the effectiveness of the measure.
Commie said:Well said Sven10077!
Thanks, I usually defend the French on most forums in most instances, but it seems there is a concerted effort to somehow kowtow to resurgent French revisionism and declare that "France was really a force in WW2".
I have tapped a wonderfully restored R-35 at the USAOM at APG Md.....truly a nice piece of equipment and FAR superior to the majority of German armor.
The French chose to fail in WW2 there is no softer way to put it. Look at their "brilliance" in having so many governmental collapses in the road to war phase. I think truth be told the French people were worn out and decided at some point in the 20s-30s "we are tired and don't want to be a first tier player anymore".
Perhaps the world would have been spared massive suffering if they had matched their diplomatic intransigence vis a vis the Weimar Republic with their Martial implosion.
From the staff that gave you the BRILLIANT WW1 era Strategy of "bayonet charges into MG fire" came 'we have no idea what to do for part 2 but dig more efficient holes".
Good work France!
On my normal/normal pretty much 1st game as Germany I walked threw Poland no problems. It was the 3 units of 3 tanks and then Gundarians solo tank div that slaughtered the poles.
sven10077 said:
By presenting yourself overly aggressive you provoke just as radical defenses. In essence, when you swing to far one way to balance an issue out, you only ensure the other side is just as radical as you.
The statement
I completely agree with. The French strategy even geared around that assumption. With an industrial base that was not expanding in comparison to the rest of Europe and a population that was not growing France assumed that in any future war with Germany it was doomed to a painful defensive slugging match. Afterall France matched up demographically much better with Germany in WW1 and was forced back on its heels even as Germany fought in Russia. What were the odds of an aggressive strategy seceding in another war as they fell behind?
This is incredibly ironic for a couple of reasons. After the French Collapse in the Franco-Prussian war France was determined to not have its troops moral collapse like that ever again. From 1870 to the First World War the message preached was "elan". Never think defensive, attack. The idea was to promote literally hyper-aggressiveness in the hopes of keeping moral up.
Consquently when the First World War broke out the French immediately pushed into Alsace (then German) on an aggressive offensive. Unfourtantly this played right into German hands by pulling French Armies away from the main German thrust.
Now ill digress a second to point out here that the French Army fought manfully in World War 1. No other nation suffered as much as France other then arguably Russia and mostly do to the communist revolution that its losses unleashed. France bore the brunt of the fighting with its men and on its soil. Britain was vital at key moments and Americas fresh entry helped break the German spirit but it was French lives on French soil which ground the Germans down.
That said World War 2 represented an almost incredible total reverse. Gone was "elan". They assumed they were doomed to fight a defensive war from the start. But they wouldnt be tricked into pushing into Southern Germany as the were last time, even as their Polish Allies fell. They would trust the Maginot Line to hold that flank and put the bulk of their Army on the border of Belgium, ready to push forward and set up a foward line when Germany invaded. And so they did. Pushed their neck right into the noose. Germany came in at the joint between the arm swinging into Belgium and the Maginot line and entrapped the bulk of Frances best men and weapons in Belgium.
The war was lost before it even began.
Arguably had the French Army not pushed into Belgium but rather settled in for a defense in depth they could have held for who knows how long. They didnt. They were fighting World War 1 again. This was World War 2.
With the loss of the cream of the French Professional Army everything collapsed. They showed some signs of picking up the fight by the time they established the Gamelin line, but by then there were far to few men to hold far to long a line. It was over.
Now you can make whatever jokes you want. "Oh oui oui we surrender" its a good laugh. But its not the whole story. just like the whole story of Poland isnt nearly 200,000 causaulties (not counting the some 500,000 that surrendered), 66,000 dead to only 42,000 German casualties, 10,000 dead.
- Status