antwony wrote: ↑
28 Dec 2021 11:45
20 divisions, even if 10 are “secret”, is a lot. If I understand my Tooze correctly, Germany’s rearmament was bankrupting the country, as well as, engaging in straight up theft/ criminality. Although, to be fair, “several thousand” (your number) is also a lot.
I sometimes wonder if that one ever actually reads his "sources"? No, there were not ten "black Reichswehr" divisions, There were 1en divisions, three cavalry and seven infantry. Yes, there was an attempt at a Scharnhorst-style Krümpersystem, but it was not noticeably successful. When the decision was made to expand in December 1933, it required the dissolution of the three cavalry divisions, the recall of retired, but fit officers, and the recruitment of 50,000 to 60,000 men in April 1934 to create the framework for 21 infantry and 3 Panzer divisions by the end of 1934. Those divisions were filled out, 3 new infantry divisions, and 56 reserve divisions were created, in 1935, after the introduction of universal conscription on 16 March 1935.
However, it was October-November 1937, before the 1915 and 1916 birth years were fully called up, adding 705,000 recruits, along with about 250,000 of the 1914 birth year, making up the bulk of the Heer's 39 regular and 56 reserve divisions. Critically, the Weißjahrgang (1901-1913), who had received no training in the Great War and who had only received 2 to 3 months reserve training in the Reichsheer and Heer, made up the bulk of the strength of the reserve divisions, 46% of 3. and 4. Welle divisions. Overall, about 326,000 of these partially trained Reserve II personnel were mobilized in the fall of 1939. It is unlikely they made up a significant fraction of the supposed "black" Reichswehr.
Large parts of the BEF of 1939 were barely equipped and trained. Artillery wasn’t the biggest lack, but more than a few of those “divisions” had no artillery. Post BEF losses, suspect you’d have to get well in 1941, or even 1942, before there were 20 fully equipped British divisions.
They were close to that by the end of September 1939 and had the better part of 20 divisions equipped. The remaining critical shortfalls were 2-pdr AT (8.4 divisions worth) and medium artillery (10 divisions worth).
Your logic is all over the place, to me.
One reason I keep this poster on ignore.
Sure, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say.
Another reason I keep this poster on ignore.
stopped making any sense and started up inane, ad hominem nonsense.
And yet another reason I keep this poster on ignore.
For me, you opinions are in line with Wehrabooish “Nazi German economic miracle” nonsense.
One of the more interesting qualities of the current crop of Wehraboos at AHF is that they somehow believe that those not of the Wehraboo ilk must somehow be "Wallieboos" rather than rational persons able to see the real issues on both sides.
For me, your wiki quotes are just re-inforcing my point i.e. they were barely used. Opinions on this may differ.
It depends upon what you mean by "18-pdr". The unmodified, Great War era Ordnance QF 18-pdr was still in existence, 405 in England upon declaration of war and 130 overseas, mostly in India and the Middle East, but also in Canada, Australia, and so forth. Most were mounted on a late war box trail (Mark IVP) or split trail (Mark VP) carriage. Of those, 216 went to France with the BEF and were lost, while some remained in service as such, most were eventually converted to 18/25-pdr, which was the 25-pdr liner, mounted in an 18-pdr jacket on an 18-pdr Mark IVP or Mark VP carriage.
Good study… I’m going with no. There is “Tampellasta Patriaan : 70 vuotta suomalaista raskasta aseenvalmistusta. From Tampella to Patria : 70 years of Finnish heavy weapons production” by Vesa Toivonen. Good luck finding that outside of Finland. The book is mainly in Finnish, but all the picture captions are in Finnish and English. Every couple of pages they have a little box with some English text in it. 25% (maybe) of the book is in English.
Finland’s military pre WW2 was a bit (sorry for this term) ghetto. They managed to field a reasonably effective army on the cheap. Filling their shortfall in artillery with mortars was, in my opinion, a very important part of that. Speaking of alternate 20th C. artillery, going with mortars pre WW2 ,for more budget conscious countries, seems very sensible. Would be some cap badge concerns, with Artillery not wanting their budget spent on an “infantry” weapon, an opinion which the Corps of Infantry would probably agree with. Would be easier to incorporate prox fuses with mortars too.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018