Reply To: Poland 1939 – Preparing for 80th Anniversary of World War II

[jamesevans140Participant 2055xp 1]

Thanks @oriskany  and @yavasa for your replies. It would appear that Poland was in a state of flux doctrine wiser.  Most nations have some kind of modernisation happening at this point in time and they were playing around with doctrine looking at the possibilities the new kit offered.  Thanks for pointing out that Poland had no doctrine that would have developed as a result of WW1 and it was unfortunate that they tried to take lessons from the Spanish civil war.  To be far I don’t know of any nation that really got the lessons right from that war.  Even the Germans were only getting as much battle experience for as much of armed forces as they could and only tested a few nodes of blitzkrieg but not any primary ones.

While Poland was concerned with Russia as the likely aggressor to them as you pointed out,  I find it interesting that the German military saw Poland as their potential aggressor.  Most of the large war games held in the 1920’s were based on defence after being invaded by Poland.

Armoured trains and cavalry I believe is getting it right from a practical point at the time.  As you say infrastructure is something lacking across Poland and Russia.  The Russians,  Germans and Finnish make valid use of armoured trains during WW2. The Finnish 8″ rail guns had some notable exchanges with Russian 12″ rail guns.  Then the Russians made heavy use of cavalry to have infantry that could keep pace with their armour throughout the war.

I trend to agree with you @oriskany. The early war we see peace time or policing armies go to war that they are not really prepared for being cash strapped for nearly 20 years in most cases.  We see some quick charges to these armies based on lessons learned or usually not learned.  Finally mid war we see armies rise that most nations wished they started with.  Technology and doctrine have delivered armies to fight this war and can simply brush early war units aside.  Late war to me is a time of fumbling.  Germany had already lost the war and their is nothing they could do to change that.  Some are looking for a new kind of army that can brush mid war armies aside,  but this is not going to happen and will not realistically happen until the 1950s. So it will be updated mid war armies that will finish the job.  Then oddly all sides get evolved is a fad of the super heavy tank.  They consume far more resources for any benefit they delivered.  They start with the Kngtigers that lead onto the Mouse. For the US it is the Pershing but lead to the T-28. The British go for the Centurian and tortoise. We have had a small play with these sledgehammer that are too heavy to lift. They did not give any real benefit and were easily destroyed by the side that had air superiority. While most had front armour that could not be penetrated, their top armour had not improved. Attacking the fuel convoys to keep them running was another way to put these beasts out of action. We put 2 Mouse tanks on the table and ran the best that the British and US could bring to the table. Yes it was impressive the damage that they caused. Basically what they hit was very destroyed. But they were very slow firing. Yes they destroyed 3 fireflies who was out of range to fire back. But neither mouse survived the flight of Typoons. Great a wargame that lasted one turn. For me this is the underlying meaning to late war gaming unless you tone it down to what really clashed most often in late war in which case you are using mid war armies.