Blitzkrieg Unleashed: Poland 1939

[Jukka Juutinen]

I wish that Micheluc book to be translated into English! By the way, there are several German combat reports speaking of Polish bravery in Thomas Jentz's Panzertruppen vol. 1...

[Domen123]

I wish that Micheluc book to be translated into English! By the way, there are several German combat reports speaking of Polish bravery in Thomas Jentz's Panzertruppen vol. 1...

Maybe if Michulec book was just 100 pages long, then it would be worth time and effort.

But it is much longer (not more valuable though) and thus translating Michulec is not worth time and effort.

They should rather translate the "PSZ" series - this is de facto a staff document, not historical literature. "PSZ" is used as one of sources by historians who write books about the campaign. So this could be useful as a primary source (showing only the Polish perspective though - and also not necessarily a 100% accurate one, since there are also other primary sources and staff officers who wrote "PSZ" did not use some of them) for Anglophone historians who write books about the campaign.

Apropos "PSZ":

About the size of the Polish Army in first days of September 1939 (excerpt from "PSZ"):

"W zapoczątkowaniu systematycznego prowadzenia Ordre de bataille, raportów stanu i strat natrafiono od razu na duże trudności. Przede wszystkim w sztabach armii oddziały I (organizacyjne) zaliczone zostały do III rzutu mob. i w chwili wybuchu wojny nie były jeszcze na miejscu. Poza tym sieć łączności N. D. była od razu przeciążona sprawami operacyjnymi i trudno było uzyskać połączenie dla innych celów. Stopniowo coraz częstsze uszkodzenia tej sieci tym bardziej utrudniały sytuację. Mimo to O. I. sztabu N. W. zestawił w dniu 5 września "Codzienny raport stanów liczebnych z dnia 4 IX", ujęty wedle poszczególnych armii i w. j. Jest to jedyny raport jaki się zachował, a prawdopodobnie nawet jedyny, jaki został sporządzony.

Raport ten wykazuje następujący "stan żywionych" wojska w polu (z wyjątkiem obszaru nadmorskiego):

686,692 oficerów i szeregowych
257,016 koni.

Jednakowoż dane te nie są ścisłe, a częściowo odbiegają one nawet bardzo daleko od rzeczywistości. Niektóre jednostki - jak się zdaje - całkowicie pominięto; w innych znów nie podano oddzielnie ilości oficerów. Co najważniejsze jednak - raport wykazuje faktycznie nie stany z dnia 4 września, ale raczej ostatnie stany, jakie przed 4 września O. I. sztabu N. W. zdołał zebrać od armii (z 3, a może nawet z 2 września). Tym się tłumaczy fakt, że w raporcie wykazane są (i to z niemal pełnymi stanami) także i w.j., które w dniu 4 IX faktycznie już nie istniały.

Raport ten (podpisany przez ppłka dypl. Ruchaja z O. I. sztabu N. W.) zachował się w aktach O. III sztabu N. W."

And my translation attempt:

"In initiating systematic way of keeping track of the Ordre de bataille, reports of personnel strength and casualties, considerable difficulties were immediately encountered. First of all, in headquarters of armies units I (organizational) had been included among the III echelon of mobilization and when war broke out they were not in their places yet. Morevoer liaison network of the General H. Q. was since the very beginning overloaded with operational matters and it was hard to make contact / obtain connection for other purposes. Gradually more and more frequent damages of that network were all the more making the situation harder. Despite this Unit I of the General HQ on 5 September set together "Daily strength report from 4 IX", arranged according to individual armies and tactical units. This is the only such daily report that survived, and probably even the only one, which was compiled.

The report shows the following "headcount of fed" of forces in the field (apart from the coastal area):

686,692 officers and men
257,016 horses.

However, these data are not precise, and partly / in some parts they even very considerably diverge from reality. Some units - as it seems - were totally omitted / overlooked; in some others again the number of officers was not reported separately. And what is most important - the report shows in facts not headcounts / personnel strength data from 4 September, but rather last known data, which could be gathered from armies by Unit I. of the General H. Q. (from 3, or maybe even from 2 September). This is how we explain the fact, that in this report there are listed (moreover, with almost full strength) also such units, which in fact already did not exist on 4 IX.

This report (signed by Lt.Col. Ruchaj from Unit I. of the General H. Q.) survived among documents of Unit III of the G. H. Q."

Source:

"Polskie Siły Zbrojne w II wojnie światowej", Vol. I, "Kampania wrześniowa 1939", Part II, pp. 427-428 and 810.

=========================================

I saw several English publications estimating the "effective strength" of the Polish Army as even about 1,500,000 or more troops. Such documents like this one published above (even though not 100% accurate, as already this quoted excerpt explained and provided reasons why it could not be 100% accurate), should be helpful to establish facts.

Cheers,
Peter

[Domen123]

Such a question about this data asked on AHF:

It have been deducted, losses 1-4 september?

Nope:

"(...) And what is most important - the report shows in facts not headcounts / personnel strength data from 4 September, but rather last known data, which could be gathered from armies by Unit I. of the General H. Q. (from 3, or maybe even from 2 September). This is how we explain the fact, that in this report there are listed (moreover, with almost full strength) also such units, which in fact already did not exist on 4 IX. (...)"

But - on the other hand:

"(...) Some units - as it seems - were totally omitted / overlooked; (...)"

So some already mobilized and existing units were not counted, while some already defeated ones were counted. Also units in the coastal area were not included - with them included, the number would be > 700,000:

"The report shows the following "headcount of fed" of forces in the field (apart from the coastal area):

686,692 officers and men
257,016 horses. (...)"

BTW - the fragment of text above indicates that these numbers included:

1) Military forces "in the field" (so apparently not reservists in spare units - Ośrodki Zapasowe)
2) Military personnel which had to be logistically supported (personnel who was being fed)

Maybe some terminology can be compared to modern terminology in NATO armies (including U.S. Army):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -6/Ch2.htm

Above is the link to "Personnel accounting and strength reporting" modern U.S. Army field manual.