Nickkyboy99
Recruit
How effective was the Polish air force in 1939, especially against German Panzers?
Polish Air Force vs German Panzers 1939
- Thread starter Nickkyboy99
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
With only two bombers, the single engine PZL.23 and the light twin engined PZL.37, neither of them dive capable or armed with heavy cannons, I can't imagine they did well against German armour.
glennasher
Senior Airman
Most of them were destroyed on the ground, the remainder didn't do very well, if they even got off the ground.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Polish military didn't have enough time to mobilize, but they were able to disperse their squadrons to prevent them from being destroyed on the ground and put up a strong fight before retiring to Romania after running low on supplies and Poland capitulated.
In regards to Polish bombers versus German armor, the P.23 light bomber accounted for nearly 30% of Wehrmacht vehicle losses during the first week of the invasion as the bomber squadrons were attacking German armor columns.
In regards to Polish bombers versus German armor, the P.23 light bomber accounted for nearly 30% of Wehrmacht vehicle losses during the first week of the invasion as the bomber squadrons were attacking German armor columns.
Admiral Beez
Major
All panzers are vehicles, but not all vehicles are panzers. Did the Poles crack many panzers?
Let's not forget that the principal panzer the Wehrmacht was equipped with in the invasion of Poland was the Panzer II, with Panzer 38(t)s from Czechoslovakia as the best tank the Germans had at that time. Much of the troop movements were made on horseback, with limited armour at the vanguard of the advance.
Panzer II Ausf L
Initially Panzer IIs armour was 10mm, increasing to 35mm in later models, so even heavy small arms fire could take one out. The 38(t) was also lightly armoured, thus vulnerable to heavy gunfire. There were no big heavily armoured panzers during the invasion of Poland. The key to Germany's success was the pre-invasion attacks on airfields and strategic facilities, then the rapidity of advance.
Initially Panzer IIs armour was 10mm, increasing to 35mm in later models, so even heavy small arms fire could take one out. The 38(t) was also lightly armoured, thus vulnerable to heavy gunfire. There were no big heavily armoured panzers during the invasion of Poland. The key to Germany's success was the pre-invasion attacks on airfields and strategic facilities, then the rapidity of advance.
Shortround6
Major General
I would note that the Panzer II pictured in Nuuuumannn's post is a very late model Panzer II with even heavier armor,
Hundreds of Pz I's were used.
but yes the Pz II was the most common tank used.
However both would stand up to 7.9mm machine gun ammo fairly well.
near miss (very near) from a 50kg bomb?
of course the Germans had darn little for airborne guns for cracking armor either in 1939.
The 20mm MG/FF wasn't really that good.
Hundreds of Pz I's were used.
but yes the Pz II was the most common tank used.
However both would stand up to 7.9mm machine gun ammo fairly well.
near miss (very near) from a 50kg bomb?
of course the Germans had darn little for airborne guns for cracking armor either in 1939.
The 20mm MG/FF wasn't really that good.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I don't have my references with me (computers and books still in storage) but the Karas equipped squadrons (escadrilles) combined, dropped roughly 70 tons of bombs on the German columns.
A Karas could carry up to 1,500 pounds of bombs.
It is indeed, an Ausf L Luchs built in 1943. It's on display at the Tank Museum at Bovington and is a veteran from ther Normandy campaign in 1944. it was used by the 1st Company of the Armoured Reconnaissance Unit of the 9th Panzer Division. Bovington also has a Panzer II Ausf F.
The Germans didn't use Oerlikon MG for their light FLAK. They had large numbers of Mauser C30 and Rheinmetall C38 which fired a much longer, heavier 20mm round at much higher velocity. They came on a solid hand cranked carriage which ensured accurate and stable gun fire. The German Army (technically Luftwaffe)was probably, by far, the best equipped army in the world at the time and had a policy of moving with the troops in some cases towed in some cases even on a half track.. (Maybe Holland very good).
The standard German 14 man squad of the time also had the powerful MG34 or MG42. One man, the most accurate shot, carried the MG and his sidekick carried the even heavier tripod. That tripod could be used in anti aircraft mode. It was tall and steady enough. Thus every German squad had a potent rifle caliber MG FLAK
Below Finish Soldiers man an early FLAK 30. Transportation wheels are removed. In German service a clockwork wound gyro sight was often fitted in early versions.
im rather skeptical of the claims
Last edited:
Actually it is not true that the Panzer 38(t) from Czechoslovakie were the principal equipment for the Wehrmacht at that time. The main tanks used aginst Poland in 1939 were the Panzer I ( mentioned by Shortround6's post #7) and Panzer II. Certainly, the Panzer 38(t)s were used as well as other tanks too. But the number of these wasn't as large as for the Pz. I and II.
The German's losses are said to be of 993 tanks and armoured vehicles in general. They lost 674 tanks and 319 armoured vehicles. 218 tanks were irrecoverable : 89 Pz I, 78 Pz II, 26 Pz III, 19 Pz IV, 6 Pz 35(t).
Other source says that the German losses were 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.
287 or what is more propably 236 tanks were irrecoverable : Pz I - 89, Pz II - 83, Pz III - 26, Pz IV - 19, Pz 35(t) - 7, Pz 38(t) - 7 + 5 commanding tanks what is 12.
The source: Fritz Hahn book "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945"
The German sheet dated on 7.10.1939 states 832 tanks lost in fights : 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, Pz Bef other types - 34, Pz 38(t) - not mentioned. It is very likely there were 6-7 Pz 38(t) lost.
Shortround6
Major General
The Germans did have the best AA in the early war, however I was referring, perhaps not too clearly, to guns in aircraft to be used against tanks.
The MG/FF having around 55-60% of the penetration of the Flak 30/38 per round. Assuming that both actually had AP rounds available at the time. Both guns had them in the supply chain. Having them at a particular gun or in a particular aircraft might be a different story. Scale of issue may have changed during the war, especially from Sept 1939 to 1940 and later.
Bf 109s with 20mm cannon were not as common in Sept 1939 as they were in April 1940 and neither were Bf 110s.
In many cases the tripods for the MG 34 ( bit early for the MG 42) were held at company level. The "sidekick" having quite enough to carry with the spare barrel (or 2?) and the majority of the ammo (hundreds of rounds) although the ammo load tended to be spread out through the squad. Ammo boxes contained five 50 round belts and there was a carrier for two of the 50 round belt containers, Rather bulky for the rounds carried.
The MG/FF having around 55-60% of the penetration of the Flak 30/38 per round. Assuming that both actually had AP rounds available at the time. Both guns had them in the supply chain. Having them at a particular gun or in a particular aircraft might be a different story. Scale of issue may have changed during the war, especially from Sept 1939 to 1940 and later.
Bf 109s with 20mm cannon were not as common in Sept 1939 as they were in April 1940 and neither were Bf 110s.
In many cases the tripods for the MG 34 ( bit early for the MG 42) were held at company level. The "sidekick" having quite enough to carry with the spare barrel (or 2?) and the majority of the ammo (hundreds of rounds) although the ammo load tended to be spread out through the squad. Ammo boxes contained five 50 round belts and there was a carrier for two of the 50 round belt containers, Rather bulky for the rounds carried.
Shortround6
Major General
If you compare the losses (even the total losses and not the repairables) to the numbers actually used you find the MK III and Czech tanks did a fair amount of the fighting. At least they lost a much higher percentage of these tanks compared to the start numbers.
Germans began a frantic up armoring program right after the Polish campaign, but not because of airborne weapons.
The losses can't be the proof that the Pz. III and Czech tanks did a fair amount of the fighting. Being in miniority the higher percentage of lost tanks could be rather the effect of the wrong German tactic or commanding mistakes at the battle field. Also it could be the result of correct using of the anti-tank guns or rifles by Pols. Regarding the airborn weapons .. you are right. During the Polish Campaign our Airforce wasn't as effective as it should be. What is more the Germans reports hardly notice the losses because of the strikes of the Polish Airforce. No wonder if the attacks were done by three planes ( a flight) with 30min. intervals or just a single plane.
That's also true. But we still should remember that there was less of them than those Pz I and II that usually were used at the first line. Also it may mean that the tanks weren't as good as it is commonly believed
Sorry, Wojtek, but I didn't actually say it was, my full sentence was as follows:
Shortround6
Major General
there were only something like 98 Pz IIIs used in Poland? About 12 per Division so the 26-40 Pz IIIs destroyed/knocked out is a very high percentage and also cannot be the result of one or two bad actions. The Germans had 211 MK IVs but perhaps not all were in combat.
The tanks most certainly were not as good as commonly believed. Many of the MK IIIs and MK IVs were the early semi experimental ones with different suspensions and transmissions. Armor was often no more than 14.5mm even on the front (many of these tanks had extra plates added to bring them up to 30mm for the attack on France).
The MK I was horrible little contraption not much better than the Polish TK tankettes. The dual machine guns being something of an illusion as they had 25 round magazines and one man had to command the tank, aim the machine gun/s and replace the magazines about every 2-3 seconds of firing. All in a space not much larger than an overturned wash tub.
The MK IIIs, having much more firepower and a much better crew set up (commander could actually command and not play gunner or have his head down looking for ammo) provided disproportionate amount of the punch of the unit, backed up the MK IV tanks.
I often find myself hard to understand!Admiral Beez
Major
It's a shame that the PZL.56 Kania didn't enter pre-war service. It's 310 mph top speed, 20mm cannon and 1,100 lb. bomb load could have made a good Panzerknacker.
Ah well, that's just napkinwaffe stuff. As for something that actually flew (if only in limited form), what do we think of the PZL.38 Wilk in the anti-tank role? Give it some credible PZL.50 Jastrząb escort and those forward cannons will crack some German armour.
Ah well, that's just napkinwaffe stuff. As for something that actually flew (if only in limited form), what do we think of the PZL.38 Wilk in the anti-tank role? Give it some credible PZL.50 Jastrząb escort and those forward cannons will crack some German armour.
Shortround6
Major General
One cannon, no more powerful than the Hispano and much slower firing. The other barrels are the machine guns.
the PZL.38 Wilk wasn't far removed from napkinwaffe. The Polish engine never came close to making the claimed power and the American Ranger was both heavier and had less power.
Lets be real, Smaller than a Whirlwind with 1/2 the power and with a two man crew, Just what does anybody really think the performance and warload was going to be?
the PZL.38 Wilk wasn't far removed from napkinwaffe. The Polish engine never came close to making the claimed power and the American Ranger was both heavier and had less power.
Lets be real, Smaller than a Whirlwind with 1/2 the power and with a two man crew, Just what does anybody really think the performance and warload was going to be?
