And I forgot, 1 shot down Slovak airplane
Slovaks shot down 2 Polish
As for sources:
Thomas Jentz "Panzertruppen": 236 tanks definitelly lost in combat but total 419 when included tanks "impossible to repair"; those losses are sufferen until September 25th
Fritz Hahn „Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945” "Polen 1939": combat tank casaulties until October 10th: 792 tanks
Pz I – 320
Pz II – 259
Pz III – 40
Pz IV – 76
Pz 35(t) – 77
Pz Bef III - 13
Pz Bef 38(t) – 7
But as some historians comment those losses does not include 5th Pz Div and some other units.
(this is my opinion): these are the numbers of tanks hit and out of action during the combat.I base this opinion on data that I've got data that 69 Pz35s were rebuilt in period Oct39-Aug40 (of 77 lost).
So it seems that in combat 792 tanks (+ tanks lost in not included units) were somehow eliminated, hit or damaged. From them there were 236 immediate write-offs. Many of them were rebuilt in next months period, but some were impossible to repair and final write-offs included 419 tanks.
So those numbers show that propably at the end of the campaign Germans had some 1800-2000 operational tanks.
Regardless of the number of divisions available at the declaration of war.
French population 1939 : 39 million
German population 1939 : 77 million
In WW1 to defeat the Central Powers, the Western Allies had to marshal France, Britain, Russia, Italy, the United States, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, and various others.
In 1939 of this grand Alliance only France and Britain remain. Italy and Japan are openly hostile, Belgium, Yugoslavia and the the US are neutral, Russia is supporting the German war effort and aims at eliminating Poland as an independent state. With Austria and Czechoslovakia absorbed, the Third Reich more or less represents the entire industrial/military power of the Central Powers in Europe. Britain enters the war with a handful of divisions.
And it does surprise anyone that the French High Command remained determined to fight a defensive war? Sure, the French Army could have overrun the forces defending the Siegfried line and re-occupy much of Rhineland. And then what? With Poland out of the picture, the Wehrmacht can do an about face and engage the French units in a much broader, unfortified front. Expecting the French Army to march in Berlin unopposed seems a bit unrealistic.
Good to know that France was 39 million at the time, almost same was Poland, this means we would had also some 60+ millions of citizens today if not WW2.
I agree that such attack was risky and had no chance to get to Berlin.
Although if France would strike on September 15th as agreed Germans had all Panzer forces engaged in Battle of Bzura and there was still front on Vistula river and some 25 Polish active divisions fighting.
So getting Wehrmacht in 2 fronts war was propably better than being beaten alone in 1940.
Of course it is easy to be "smart after".
I would have preferred France to strike in the Rhineland, perhaps seizing it as a negotiation token, but I don't think it would have saved Poland in time.
The sitzkrieg was not just leadership blindness. It was a consequence of military factors as well, such as waiting for the mobilization of more British divisions (a look at the number of battle-ready UK divisions in 1939 leaves one happy the Channel was that wide and that deep and that crowded with British ships), deploying more tanks, planes (the French aerospace industry was being reorganized at full speed) and guns, the fear to fritter away the Army in futile offensives as in 1914.
And well, the battle plan wasn't either that bad - from a purely Franco-British perspective of course. For all his faults, Gamelin had devised a plan that was spot on the money - the German thrust was supposed to be met in Belgium by the finest Franco-British mechanized forces, and that is what would have happened had von Manstein not interfered.
If we don't have them from Putin lets concentrate on Slovakia
BTW 3 high Slovak officers were awarded with Iron Crosses, Slovak force consisted of 50.000 troops.
There were some skirmishes and Slovaks lost some 70 people killed wounded and missing plus one plane.
The "air war" was quite funny. Single Polish observation plane was patrolling over Slovak forces and attacked them once causing some casaulties. Slovak Jagdgruppe was searching for it several days and finally was shot down.
Slovaks were offered by Hitler to take Zakopane but Slovakia denied making some small border changes.
Prepare Vodka Pole! And your finest!
Edit:Hitler told Slovak nationalists in 39 that if they did not secede from Czechoslovakia and form a nazi puppet state, Slovakia would be divided between Poland and Hungary. Treachourous SOB among other things.
Last edited by Telmar; 09-03-2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason: added a more On Topic info
I realise the combination of "I am lazy" and "can you find" is not friendly, my apology. I don't know if you have access to "The French army 1939-1940 – organization, order of battle, operational history" (volume 1 is sufficient). Or if you read french. The french used in historical books is heavy to read .
I have to add, I am amazed by how much crap is written about french army in english.
Anyway: France had twenty military regions. Every region had to support one division. Every division in case of mobilization had to split in three.
France had no war ready army, and 20 peace time "mobilization sources" infantry divisions of french BO. that much. Needles to say such divisions had zero military value per se.
Plus they had 2 armour divisions and two (three) cavalry divisions with few independent regiments in plus.
France needed mobilization time to get "Nation in arms".
somebody presented how much french managed to amass before may 1940.
Some clarification: the french used "funny war" time to reorganize structure of their unites.
The same is true about all campaigns, " Desert storm" included.About Polish propaganda ok, we've got Polish propaganda vs Western propaganda which was initically saying that our planes were destroyed on ground and campaign lasted 2 weeks. Simply the campaign was harder that it was presented in popular view.
People outside of any field, especially journalists, tend to underestimate complexity and cost of necessary efforts. It is true about science, education, law, and certainly it is true about military actions.
Anyway since cold war is over, the perception about all blitzkrieg campaigns is becoming depoliticized. Frankly I cann't remember any belittling of polish campaign anywhere outside of russian literature, but I prefer to look for fresh sources so maybe I just missed it.
Thanks for tank data, I will try to dig size of german army right after September 1939. I do remember it was discussed somewhere in decent way.
Anyway since war actions took some time, tanks were to be lost, repaired and lost another time. So the calculations are accurate only with using data of repair shops included in analysis.
It's not like I think the precise data are somehow important or they would change conclusions about blitzkrieg campaigns (Polald campaign barely fits Blitzkrieg description, but anyway...).
The question I asked, was due your rather strange conclusions about the strength of German army after campaign. If you compare data you wrote now with your initial estimation you would understand.
They were also producing military equipment.As for the planes - Shores - 564 write-offs from Luftwaffe.
Germans also lost a considerable number of other equipment like trucks, horses etc. Some of these losses have been covered by captured Polish weapon - but it was available only after Polish army was defeated.
This is mirror of what the russians write about polish campaign. And no less ignorant. Pity to see such posts here. "ASSumptions", overoptimistic "estimations" coupled with over generalisation coming from ignorance. For example having enough time to train and mobilise the french still never manage to get this alleged "chushing domination in artillery". What make you think they would have it in 1939? Where to get experienced gunners? from Mars?British army is negligable as it was in GB at the time. As for the French army
it was capable of collecting 31 first-line divisions to launch a half-hearted attack on Saar region and Germany had only 17 reserve divisions to defend that area. Considering French superiority in all kind of weapons including tanks, and cruhing domination in artillery they had a capability to break German defences from purely military point of view. But they gave up after first clashes.
French have lost in exactly the same way the polish had. Only against better organized, better equiped, more experienced and what is the most important bolder german army with commanders assigned basing on their war capabilities&achievements.
Vast majority of french tanks had crew of two. "Commander" had to do everything. Though with much better armament and armour than Panzer I they are still in the same class. "training tanks" that were not really suitable for any long time operations. Great example is abortive character of de Gaull attacks in 1940. They were short.You criticize French army, i never read anything particularly about them so i won't argue except for one point - artillery was the foundation of their military doctrine so i believe it was at least equal to what Germans had. As for your other claims - can you provide sources cause what you write about French tanks sounds just funny.
Anyway it's common knowledge, that before suggesting-discussing anything it is usefull to collect sufficient information to stay informed and be capable to draw meaningful suggestions and conclusions. Hence my continous questions about BO and the strength of french army in 1939.
Lol, Wehrmaht was the only more or less experienced army in Europe in 1939. The only one trained for modern war.Note that in September 1939 Wehrmaht was still an unexperienced force equiped mostly with Pz-I and Pz-II tanks.
. What do you know about first world war, say 1914 campaigns?What is more important is that these tanks along with a bulk of infantry, artillery and airforce were tied in Poland till mid-September and transporting them to French border was pretty much out of question if German wanted to quickly win the campaign. French intervention at this point could possibly end the war in no time if not for their defensive military doctrine.
Germans'd succeeded* in 1914 to do exactly what you suggest, what makes you think that they would fail in 1939, in age of tanks and tracks?
*Germany has succeeded to halt Russia and destroy first wave french army in 1914.
I remind that unlike France in 1914, Poland didn't have sufficient reserves and space to stabilize frontline, so your country wouldn't manage any better than Romania in 1918.
I already gave the genesis of given numbers. I watched various discussions about those figures on Polish historical forums. So the differences come as I wrote what was considered as destroyed tank and how it was registered.
236 tanks until Sep 25th were immediate write-offs which meant that the tank exploded or was totally burnt and was not taken to service.
Many were taken to service and attempted to repair with good success. But some were impossible to repair and the number of totally lost tanks grew to 400+.
But the numbers of 700+ is the tanks that were somehow affected in combat: hit by antitank gun, partially destroyed etc. They were being repaired for several months period.
This number was received from reports of combat units. As I already wrote 4th Pz Division at the end of campaign was running with some 70 tanks of initial 400+. So it does not match the number of 236 lost tanks.
So final conclusion is: Polish Army hit or temporarily eliminated 700+ tanks plus 300 armoured cars. Those tanks in next months were taken from Polish territory back to workshops or factories and repaired/rebuilt. 300 with success, while about 150 without success while about 250 were not even tried.