Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
France was also an industrial country and she had tanks and airplanes, yet she was beaten by the superiority of German training, leadership, and professionalism at all levels. While it is true that the Soviets showed remarkable courage, you seem to be forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that they out-numbered the Germans, that they were better used to and equipped for their own bitter winters, and that their supply lines were shorter, at least at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad. You can overwhelm an enemy by force of numbers, and Stalin had a complete indifference to his own casualties. One example of that would be the Winter War against Finland, which preceded World War II.
I know Germans went far away too but, they were the raiders, they didn't have to turn their back on anybody. Unlike sovietcs, who held that assault with bombs falling aside them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles
Soldiers on horseback charge the enemy with sabers in their hands. Mounted infantry gets off the horse, sets up machine guns, mortars and even anti-tank guns and shoots at the enemy without having to close the distance. Horses are used only as a means of transportation, like a Humvee or a helicopter. The Germans too had mounted infantry.
But a tank or even a bicycle can move faster than a horse. And that was one of main reasons of Poland capitulation in a short time line.
Just wanted to add a little to this. The lance as a main cavalry weapon had largely fallen out of favor during the 18th century with most cavalry units being sabre based and split between cuirassier (heavy) and hussar (light) units, as well as "irregular" units such as dragoons and carabineers. Only one nation really stuck to retaining the lance as a major cavalry weapon and that was France. While Poland was no longer a "nation" at that point, Polish cavalry units raised for other nations still trained with the traditional lance.
During the Napoleonic War's the great effectiveness of the French Chevaux-Leger-Lanciers led to a run on reintroducing the lance as a key cavalry weapon. Since most nations had abandoned it or relegated it to a minor role, there were few cavalrymen familiar with it, except for the Poles and the French. Poland turned into a major recruiting ground for not only the French, but the coalition nations as well who were looking to add lancers back into their armies. Polish lancer units served in the armies of virtually every nation during the Napoleonic Era.
Right, right - Polish cavalry was very handy serving Napoleon..
Yet it were Russians ( again) that did beat Napoleon. And it were Russians ( yet again) that were invaded. Oh, do I hear "Napoleon lost because of the cold winter.. because of the supply lines..." or are we noticing a certain pattern here?
PS. That time around Russians took over Paris.
However no one seems to remember Russian atrocities there. The French enriched their vocabulary with the Russian word "bistro" which they use until today, and Russians received the word "shval'" ( from French (dead) "horse") in exchange. Then Russian officers gathered their men and they left for Russia. That's about it. No horrors described in Berlin. One can only wonder why.
But a tank or even a bicycle can move faster than a horse. And that was one of main reasons of Poland capitulation in a short time line.
A tank is very expensive and requires a lot of fuel. A bicycle can only travel on paved roads. Horses are cheap and can go where many vehicles cannot. You cannot compare horses to tanks - they serve different functions. The Poles had tanks too, and the Germans had horses.
Poland capitulated quickly for many reasons. Equipment was only one of them and not the most important. The biggest reason was that the Polish army simply was not fully mobilized and prepared for war when the Germans invaded. The second reason was the German military's theoretical understanding of modern warfare and its ability to execute it on the battlefield. It was far ahead of everyone - the Poles, the French, the Soviets, the British and the Americans.
Right, right - Polish cavalry was very handy serving Napoleon..
Yet it were Russians ( again) that did beat Napoleon. And it were Russians ( yet again) that were invaded. Oh, do I hear "Napoleon lost because of the cold winter.. because of the supply lines..." or are we noticing a certain pattern here?
PS. That time around Russians took over Paris.
However no one seems to remember Russian atrocities there. The French enriched their vocabulary with the Russian word "bistro" which they use until today, and Russians received the word "shval'" ( from French (dead) "horse") in exchange. Then Russian officers gathered their men and they left for Russia. That's about it. No horrors described in Berlin. One can only wonder why.
Really? Are you going to make every post you reply to of mine about the "conversation" we had in the "Dolster/Nuremberg" thread?
This thread was discussing troops and got onto the topic of Polish cavalry. It had nothing to do with the Napoleonic War other than mentioing the reason why Polish cavalry was so coveted. I'd love to discuss the Napoleonic War, it was one of my favorite periods of history, but this really isn't the place.
Napoleon lost in Russia for a multitude of reasons, chief among them being the tactics employed by the Russians and the valiant guerilla raids undertaken by Cossack units on the French columns.
As for the Russians, it was a great "coming out" for the Russian Empire, it was the war that firmly established them as a major European versus a regional power. Of course, you are also overlooking the fact that the Sixth Coalition contained far more nations than just Russia and Russia contributed less than 20% of the available forces. Indeed it was Austria and Prussia who bore the lions share of the fighting and contirbuted the most troops and Austrian Marshal Scwarzenberg that is credited for coordinating and leading the coalition's armies to victory. Overall, less than 15,000 Russian troops entered Paris.
A tank is very expensive and requires a lot of fuel. A bicycle can only travel on paved roads. Horses are cheap and can go where many vehicles cannot. You cannot compare horses to tanks - they serve different functions. The Poles had tanks too, and the Germans had horses.
Just to add to that a bit, horses were in fact strategically faster to mobilize than tanks or bicycles. A fully equipped soldier on a bike could only move marginally faster than one on foot and bike troops had no ability to take larger weapons such as antitank guns with them.
Tanks required extensive logistics to keep them fueled and most tanks of the era had a top speed of 25mph with a cruising speed around 15mph or so as well as a total cruising range of 120 miles.
Trucks and other motor carriers were the preferred choice, but were often in limited supplies and had similar restrictions to the tanks.
Cavalry could move at a sustained pace of 20-25mph, cover up to 100 miles in a day and also had the ability to bring larger weapons along as well. They were also relatively indpendent of the supply chain. The issue with cavalry was the amount of experience a soldier needed to be one and the cost of maintaining them.
If you're short on motorized transport, horses are about as good an alternative that you are going to find.
I don't know about German soldiers but what I do know is that the Italians were the worst soldiers ever!
Some good soldiers in the WWII were the Romanians... they fought both against the Russians and the Germans and the Hungarians and pretty much against everyone and at the end of the world they remained with much of their country (although they lost some territories: Moldova and some northern territories to USSR).
A tank is very expensive and requires a lot of fuel. A bicycle can only travel on paved roads. Horses are cheap and can go where many vehicles cannot. You cannot compare horses to tanks - they serve different functions. The Poles had tanks too, and the Germans had horses.
Poland capitulated quickly for many reasons. Equipment was only one of them and not the most important. The biggest reason was that the Polish army simply was not fully mobilized and prepared for war when the Germans invaded. The second reason was the German military's theoretical understanding of modern warfare and its ability to execute it on the battlefield. It was far ahead of everyone - the Poles, the French, the Soviets, the British and the Americans.
That's why Isaid "one of main reasons", I do know about the others. I just think polish were a bit unwise of thinking that Hitler would take the "Dantzig corridor" in peace. They were surrounded by national-socialists at west and comunists on the other side. Germany was humiliated and deep fallen in crisis and comunism was incredibly rising so, Poland wasn't a good place to stay in back at that time.
Really? Are you going to make every post you reply to of mine about the "conversation" we had in the "Dolster/Nuremberg" thread?
No, only some of them.
Quote:
As for the Russians, it was a great "coming out" for the Russian Empire, it was the war that firmly established them as a major European versus a regional power. Of course, you are also overlooking the fact that the Sixth Coalition contained far more nations than just Russia and Russia contributed less than 20% of the available forces. Indeed it was Austria and Prussia who bore the lions share of the fighting and contirbuted the most troops and Austrian Marshal Scwarzenberg that is credited for coordinating and leading the coalition's armies to victory. Overall, less than 15,000 Russian troops entered Paris.
Ahhh... Uhmm... yes of course - how could I forget about Austria and Prussia, that "bore the lion share" in the victory over Napoleon.. How could I, unless of course I study the events a bit closer, so...
( After all why would Alexander I would have become such powerful monarch in Europe as he was, if the "lion share" of the victory over Napoleon belonged to Austrians and Prussians?)
This whole situation kinda reminds me of a glorious Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. Not in 1942 when Russians were bleeding to death and even not in 1943, but in June of 1944, already AFTER the battle of Stalingrad, that was really the turning point in the war, that made German victory in the East impossible. ( There was a reason why back in the 1942-43 Russian soldiers were calling American bacon and canned sausages "Second front" with a sense of irony.)
But yes, Russians did send less of their troops to Paris in 1812-1814 war, because at that point in time it was already mostly internal European affairs - I'll give you that much.
I don't know about German soldiers but what I do know is that the Italians were the worst soldiers ever!
Some good soldiers in the WWII were the Romanians... they fought both against the Russians and the Germans and the Hungarians and pretty much against everyone and at the end of the world they remained with much of their country (although they lost some territories: Moldova and some northern territories to USSR).
I see yet another "great fighters" against Fascist Germany;
"Following the outbreak of World War II on 1 September 1939, the Kingdom of Romania officially adopted a position of neutrality. However, the rapidly changing situation in Europe during 1940, as well as domestic political upheaval, undermined this stance. Fascist political forces such as the Iron Guard rose in popularity and power, urging an alliance with Nazi Germany and its allies...."
"In summer 1940, a series of territorial disputes were resolved unfavorably to Romania, resulting in the loss of most of the territory gained in the wake of World War I. This caused the popularity of Romania's government to plummet, further reinforcing the fascist and military factions, who had eventually staged a coup that turned the country into a fascist dictatorship under ConducătorIon Antonescu. The new regime has firmly set the country on the course towards the Axis camp, officially joining the Axis Powers on 23 November 1940. "When it's a question of action against the Slavs, you can always count on Romania," Antonescu stated ten days before the start of Operation Barbarossa.[1]"
Ahhh... Uhmm... yes of course - how could I forget about Austria and Prussia, that "bore the lion share" in the victory over Napoleon.. How could I, unless of course I study the events a bit closer, so...
( After all why would Alexander I would have become such powerful monarch in Europe as he was, if the "lion share" of the victory over Napoleon belonged to Austrians and Prussians?)
This whole situation kinda reminds me of a glorious Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. Not in 1942 when Russians were bleeding to death and even not in 1943, but in June of 1944, already AFTER the battle of Stalingrad, that was really the turning point in the war, that made German victory in the East impossible. ( There was a reason why back in the 1942-43 Russian soldiers were calling American bacon and canned sausages "Second front" with a sense of irony.)
But yes, Russians did send less of their troops to Paris in 1812-1814 war, because at that point in time it was already mostly internal European affairs - I'll give you that much.
If you want to discuss Napoleon and/or the Invasion of Russia, create a thread and I'll be more than happy to join in. Just be sure to bring more than wikipedia cut and paste jobs.
FWIW, while the defeat of Napoleon in Russia and the destruction of the Grande Armee was certainly a devastating defeat, it was not by itself what did Napoleon in. The war of the Sixth Coalition is what defeated Napoleon and that involved far more than just Russia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, do I hear "Napoleon lost because of the cold winter.. because of the supply lines..." or are we noticing a certain pattern here?
