Elan Vital
Airman
- 68
- Aug 24, 2024
Polish outfitting & positioning of their armed forces, 1935-39(40?) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
So looking at the years 1935-39 they had capacity for 850 planes a year, or 3400 planes in total, but they didn't even built HALF that figure. They could have built another 1500 planes (!) easily, in those years. But lets not be so optimistic and merely propose only 1000 extra planes, of these some will be secondary types like trainers, transports, recce and so on, but let's say 2/3 will be frontline combat types, that's still something like 700 planes. Enough to reequip the air force almost twice over. At least they could have replaced all the older types like PZL-11, 23 and other crates with more modern ones. Imagine having produced an additional mix of say 150 PZL-24, 150 PZL-43 before 1938, and another 100 extra PZL-37, 150 PZL-38 and 150 PZL-50 before and during the war.
But not on fighters, which I was focusing so far. Interceptors need the better props ahead of bombers.
For Bombers, even the B-18 isn't a horrible choice to bulk up numbers, as again, Douglas was selling licenses for the DC-3 to anyone with a deep enough bank account as Curtiss was for fighters.
Yes, the PLZ 37 is an awesome craft, but too many were sidelined as trainers in 1939. Use B-18s for that, since they were ready in 1936, a few years before the PLZ 37 was flying.
So buying H-S or Curtiss props is a real deal if infrastructure is lacking.
Poland's main problem is not enough time or money.
Oh, and a lack of an early warning network (not even Radar, just visual) and centralized command to collect and interpret that data
Nobody really had that, or know that they needed that, beyond the British.
- Thread starter
- #25
It is really hard to argue against these claims. Lack of the early warning network was a sore point. But any air defence system still needs fighters in quantity and in good quality, and Poland had neither.
Polish were trying to circumvent the lack of money by, as far as the purchase of military gear, the two things - exporting the military gear and acquiring foreign credit lines. Nominally Uruguay (76+ mil zloty total) and Greece (62 mil total) were the best buyers, however in reality actual buyers were the Spanish Republicans. Total export of military gear was ~276 mil zloty, between 1927 and the end of 1938. Most of the gear sold to export was the ww1 stuff, from Mausers and it's ammo to the FT-17 tanks.
The 'highest' non-Spanish country that was buying Polish was Romania, with some 18 mil zloty. Countries actually buying stuff for themselves were buying aircraft and Bofors 40mm guns, later ending up in Netherlands and the UK for example. radios were also exported, and so was the ammo for the Bofors 40 and 37mm guns.
For comparison, export price of a PZL 37 2-engined bomber offered to Bulgaria was 520 thousands zloty, and PZL 46 (with G&R 14N) was offered at 302 thousands. Bulgaria and Turkey imported about 6.5-7 mil zloty of military gear from Poland, each, before 1939.
Foreign credit was used to finance military stuff. Polish destroyers were built in France via that system. It would've been far more prudent to use the credits to buy other French gear instead - propellers (French were not shy to make the 2-pitch and CS props very early) and engines come to mind.
I'd also try and get the credits from the Swiss, to buy Oerlikon AA guns; perhaps also at Rheinmetall-owned Solothurn, for the kicks and giggles? Also from the UK, to buy the VIckers 75mm AA guns, like the ones Romania bought.
But the most cunning plan involves getting the credits in Austria (buy the Bohlers there, instead of the Bofors 37mm AT gun) and Czechoslovakia (diverse artillery pieces?) ...
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #26
Further about the AA defenses.
For the needs of coastal AA defenses (also with an eye for anti-ship use?) at Hel and around Gdinya, in the 1930s Polish purchased the French Schneider M.1922 75mm AA gun, that used 2150g of propellant to achieve MV of 850 m/s with a 5.9 kg shell; same gun was installed on several French vessels in the interwar period. With a bit of foresight, and with French will to cooperate (that should not be hard, with Poland being seen as a counter against Germany and Soviet Union), having more of these guns manufactured for the Polish needs both in France and Poland should not be a long shot.
For the needs of coastal AA defenses (also with an eye for anti-ship use?) at Hel and around Gdinya, in the 1930s Polish purchased the French Schneider M.1922 75mm AA gun, that used 2150g of propellant to achieve MV of 850 m/s with a 5.9 kg shell; same gun was installed on several French vessels in the interwar period. With a bit of foresight, and with French will to cooperate (that should not be hard, with Poland being seen as a counter against Germany and Soviet Union), having more of these guns manufactured for the Polish needs both in France and Poland should not be a long shot.
Hi
The book 'Polish Aircraft 1893-1939' by Jerzy B. Cynk, Putnam 1971, has mentions of the various props used before 1939. This includes the "Hamilton/P.Z.L., three-blade variable pitch metal airscrews."(p.235), probably indicates these were licence produced and used on aircraft such as the PZL P.37, P.50 (p.265) P.46 (p.258) also LWS.4 (p.348). PZL also appear to have produced some "two-blade adjustable-pitch wooden airscrew." (p.253). While the Polish P.23B had a "Szomanski two-blade fixed-pitch B-17 II/b wooden airscrew." the Bulgarian version, P.43A, had a "Gnome-Rhone three-blade adjustable-pitch metal airscrew." The PZL.44 Wicher, prototype airliner did have "Hamilton-Standard three-blade constant-speed metal airscrews." (p.250) but these must have been imported.
I hope that is of interest.
Mike
Shortround6
Major General
It is a long shot or a confusion of effort. IS a 2nd (or 3rd) rate gun in the hand worth delaying a 1st rate guns production?
Yes the Poles were short of just about everything. They had about 460 75mm AA guns on order but only 52 had been delivered.
Diverting effort/money to an older/slower firing gun may not have increased defensive capability much.
The other problem/s with mid/heavy AA gun systems is both warning and fire control. The guns need directors/predictors to be effective for both aiming and fuze setting.
Otherwise they are reverting back to WW I era fire control and having guns put bursting shells into the air may have been good for morale. It really wasn't that effective.
The Swedish 37mm Bofors AT gun was certainly not a power house but it was better than the German 37mm and most of the German tanks in Poland had even thinner armor than they would use in France the next spring. A lot of existing German tanks were upgraded with additional armor the BoF. Not enough but the German tanks in Poland were thiiiiiinnn.
- Thread starter
- #29
As you can see, it is very much worth it. Having useful AA guns in good numbers in service beats having small number of excellent guns. Sorta like having P-40s in 1941-42 beats not having the P-38s and P-47s.
Best part of Polish 'heavy' AA guns in 1939 were the M1897 guns erected on pedestals, that were perhaps a threat to a Hs 126 lingering around at 250 km/h and at 2000m?
Agreed all the way.
Yes, German tanks in Poland were a fair game even for the 20mm guns.
Having a several hundreds of the Fench 25mm ATGs might've been ... interesting for the German tank and AFV crews.
- Thread starter
- #30
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Track down writer and historian Adam Tooze. I have his book The Wages of Destruction, The making & breaking of the Nazi economy. There are all sorts of his videos up on YouTube. In 1933, Nazi Germany was broke and in debt. President of the Central Bank Hjalmar Schacht did all sorts of creative jiggerypokey to raise money to build the war machine. Schacht spent the last year or so of the war in Dachau, he was tried at Nuremburg, he had the highest IQ score of any of the defendants, and he was acquitted.
The PZL P7 was leading edge fighter technology in 1931, but the depression hit. Poland lacked the money to sustain advanced military technology. They lacked big, powerful engines needed to make up-to-date fighters. In the thirties, they operated within their financial means, and the Germans didn't.
Just a note .. in Polish "km" abbreviation doesn't stand for "kulomet" what is the Russian word "пулемёт" but it is "karabin maszynowy".
"Kulemet" is a Ukrainian word. There is also a similar word in the Belarusian language.
- Thread starter
- #34
- Thread starter
- #35
Nobody in his right mind expects that the Polish would've come out with the Spitfire equivalent, powered by the Polish Merlin in the nose, in 1937.
But a fighter in-between the Ki 27 and MC.200 was well within the scope of their industry both to design and produce. Alas.
Thank you.
I've simply attached the Czech word to a Polish device there
Yes, the word is used in all mentiond above countries but it is from the Russian language actually. For the reason the word "kulomiot" also was used in old Polish especially by Poles living at the Russian Partition and servicing in the Tsarist Army before regaining independence and the whole freedom of Poland after the WW1. Similarly the Poles living in the Prussian Partition and the Austria-Hungary one used the "Maschinengewehr". When Poland became the independent country the vocabulary was unified and the "karabin maszynowy", what is the Polish translation of the German world, was introduced.
Shortround6
Major General
Poland cannot do everything, which is shown by the disparity in raw numbers and in more detailed looks.
The All fighter plan requires a departure from conventional thinking in 1935.
Problem is that the Germans were increasing their aircraft production in large amounts in the 1930s and the need for an ALL Fighter Force might not have been apparent in 1935-36.
He 51 Biplanes were still in service in large numbers in 1936 for instance, and were replaced by the Arado 68 biplane (514 built) and even the Russians could not decide if the monoplane was superior to the biplane.
A lot of the PZL 11 and PZL 23 production was old. Early-mid 30s engines were several hundred hp lower in power than 1938-39 versions of the same engines. Perhaps a rebuild program of some of the old fighters to handle the increased power of a modern Mercury? Install even 2 pitch props?
Using only fighters seriously hurts the ability of the Polish Air Force to attack German columns. The PZL 23 was 'supposed' to carry six 100kg bombs or eight 50kg bombs.
Even if the fighters were up graded to carry two 100kg or four 50kg bombs attacks are not going to be as destructive.
The PZL 23s were supposed to do some of the recon. Getting any generals to switch over to all fighters leaves them with a severally degraded strike capability and a severely degraded recon capability. The Germans surprised the Poles with their capability and it is only with hindsight that we know that many of the Poles bomber missions and recon missions failed ( as did the French and British in France).
But canceled PZL 23 construction in 1934-37 does not get you monoplane/retracting landing gear aircraft being built in 1937-39.
The I-16 was a step forward, but it was not the great leap that it seemed. The early versions were maxing out at 440-470kph at attitude. The "fast" versions had to wait for the 1000-1100hp M-62/M-63 engines. As a benchmark the US P-35 was good for 454kph at 10,000ft with a P&W R-1830-9 (850hp at 8,000ft).
Perhaps a Polish version of the IAR 80 would have possible but you only have about 1 - 1 1/2 years for production, and a limited choice of engines. (Mercury or G-R 14?)
Most likely armament is four 7.9mm machine guns.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I haven't heard "jiggery pokery" since I watched Blake's Seven.
- Thread starter
- #39
There is no cancellation of the PZL 37 in my suggestions. Nor there it is for many other aircraft made in Poland.
I've suggested that the fighters also carry the bombs (granted, they will not be carrying as much as a 'proper' bomber).
Polish knew that the P.11 was faster than the Gauntlet with the same engine. So unless someone started drinking the lead paint, there will be no Polish back-tracking to the biplane fighters.
P.11g was outfitted with Mercury VIII. Top speed was 15 km/h better than what the P.11c had (390 vs. 375 km/h), with the ancient Mercury VS2. We know that, while the 2-pitch props improved RoC, the effect on top speed was barely noticeable - at least such was the case with the Spitfire and Hurricane.
Latest Ki-27 was still with lower-powered engine than the P.11g, that power was achieved in the lower altitude, yet, that Ki-27 will beat the P.11g by 80 km/h.
Unfortunately, people at PZL were too late to make a switch to the cantilever monoplane fighters.
Seems like when Poles wanted a monoplane bomber with retractable undercarriage, they started making them. So I have no doubts that they would've been capable for making the monoplane fighters with retractable U/C.
OTOH, I have nothing against the new fighters being the monoplanes with cantilever low-set wing, enclosed cockpit and fixed at 1st.
Cancelling the PZL 23 is a way to free the funds, manpower and factory floor.
Achievement of 440-470 km/h at altitude on a military aircraft in service in the mid 1930s has the sign saying 'a great step forward' written up in the glossy red font.
+1 on that.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
The word "jiggerypokey" covers multiple chapters of a long book. it is a useful word.
