Czechoslovak army

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
liska
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Mar 2018, 18:21
Location: brno, czech rep.

Re: Czechoslovak army

#31

Post by liska » 04 May 2018, 23:05

Just now I am busy. Sorry for short/partial reply to our discussion related to available allied unit for using in Western Europe theater during autumn 1944.
Pruitt wrote:I am confused by the 4th Infantry article, is one of the many Polish units listed?
Pruitt
According english wiki (link above):
"4th Division organized by the western Allies
Following the Polish defeat in 1939, the 4th Infantry Division was reconstituted in France, under the command of Stanisław Franciszek Sosabowski. The 4th was assigned to a training camp in Parthenay, in western France. The French high command was reluctant to give the 4th Infantry Division weapons sorely need at the front, so the 4th was forced to train with pre-World War I weapons. By the time of the German invasion of France, only around 3,500 men, out of 11,000, of the 4th Division had been armed. When the impending French defeat became apparent, Sosabowski ordered his forces to retreat to the Atlantic coast. 6,000 Polish soldiers were evacuated from La Pallice, a harbor near La Rochelle, France.[1] In June they were evacuated for England, and the 4th Infantry Division was again reconstituted in Scotland, under the Polish I Corps, along with the Polish 1st Armored Division, the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, and the 16th Independent Armored Brigade. The 4th Division was charged with coastal defense of eastern Scotland, against the threat of a German invasion from Norway. This western incarnation of the 4th Division saw no combat after the defeat of France in 1940, and was inactivated in 1947"
some details in polish language: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Dywizja_Piechoty_(PSZ).

I´m not sure, but it looks like that 4th polish division was not part of partially phantom armies... see list of mixture real/fictional units used for Fortitude North- "invasion" in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... tude_North
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ar ... tude_North

I understand the the divison was incompleted (see link with polish wiki), but what a pity that they didn´t fight.

liska
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Mar 2018, 18:21
Location: brno, czech rep.

Re: Czechoslovak army

#32

Post by liska » 05 May 2018, 00:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Pruitt,
I suspect that the Czechs were used because they would have been wasted in the UK and were of use at Dunkirk holding down German forces. Furthermore, once in theatre, they provided as useful armoured reserve already on site should the need arise.
Maybe there will also other reason to use CzechoSlovakian soldiers to siege of Germans in Dunkirk. Because French Goverment don´t allow significant using of heavy artillery or strategic bombing in Dunkirk it was hard to eliminate threat that Germans made lift siege and destroy allied supply lines.

So good idea was to use soft power for weaking german defenders. Most of Czechoslovakian soldiers knew German as a second language, because of German minority in prewar Czechoslovakia. And german defector from Dunkirk had easier way how to defect, because Germans know they could communicate in german with Czechoslovakian soldiers and germans also know that people in Czechoslovakia were no radical (compared to french partisans or polish soldiers) so CZ-SK usually didn´t killed prisoners.
Source - diaries of head german defenders in Dunkirk Friedrich Frisius who made many activities against defect of significant part of his soldiers to Czechoslovakian soldiers. Czech edition of these diaries was published few years ago. http://www.vhu.cz/oblehani-pevnosti-dun ... he-strany/


Pruitt
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 22 Mar 2018, 02:00
Location: Tarkington Prairie, Texas

Re: Czechoslovak army

#33

Post by Pruitt » 05 May 2018, 02:52

liska wrote:Just now I am busy. Sorry for short/partial reply to our discussion related to available allied unit for using in Western Europe theater during autumn 1944.
Pruitt wrote:I am confused by the 4th Infantry article, is one of the many Polish units listed?
Pruitt
According english wiki (link above):
"4th Division organized by the western Allies
Following the Polish defeat in 1939, the 4th Infantry Division was reconstituted in France, under the command of Stanisław Franciszek Sosabowski. The 4th was assigned to a training camp in Parthenay, in western France. The French high command was reluctant to give the 4th Infantry Division weapons sorely need at the front, so the 4th was forced to train with pre-World War I weapons. By the time of the German invasion of France, only around 3,500 men, out of 11,000, of the 4th Division had been armed. When the impending French defeat became apparent, Sosabowski ordered his forces to retreat to the Atlantic coast. 6,000 Polish soldiers were evacuated from La Pallice, a harbor near La Rochelle, France.[1] In June they were evacuated for England, and the 4th Infantry Division was again reconstituted in Scotland, under the Polish I Corps, along with the Polish 1st Armored Division, the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, and the 16th Independent Armored Brigade. The 4th Division was charged with coastal defense of eastern Scotland, against the threat of a German invasion from Norway. This western incarnation of the 4th Division saw no combat after the defeat of France in 1940, and was inactivated in 1947"
some details in polish language: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Dywizja_Piechoty_(PSZ).

I´m not sure, but it looks like that 4th polish division was not part of partially phantom armies... see list of mixture real/fictional units used for Fortitude North- "invasion" in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... tude_North
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ar ... tude_North

I understand the the division was incomplete (see link with polish wiki), but what a pity that they didn´t fight.
I went through my Nafziger's Order of Battle of the British Army from 1944-45. There is no 4th Polish Division listed at all. One would have thought that the Polish Corps in Italy could have used these troops. By April, 45 the two (3rd, 5th) Polish Divisions in Italy had finally raised six Infantry Brigades. They could have used the 4th Division's troops as a Cadre to get there sooner. There was no 16th Polish Armor Brigade listed either. Until we see better data, I am going to assume both were used to hold replacements for the fighting units.

By the way, the French Army did not have enough Artillery, Antitank weapons or Signals to arm the new divisions they were raising either. They were lucky to get to the UK.

Pruitt

liska
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Mar 2018, 18:21
Location: brno, czech rep.

Re: Czechoslovak army

#34

Post by liska » 05 May 2018, 13:07

please delete this empty post
Last edited by liska on 05 May 2018, 13:09, edited 1 time in total.

liska
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Mar 2018, 18:21
Location: brno, czech rep.

Re: Czechoslovak army

#35

Post by liska » 05 May 2018, 13:08

Pruitt wrote:
liska wrote:Just now I am busy. Sorry for short/partial reply to our discussion related to available allied unit for using in Western Europe theater during autumn 1944.
Pruitt wrote:I am confused by the 4th Infantry article, is one of the many Polish units listed?
Pruitt
According english wiki (link above):
"4th Division organized by the western Allies
Following the Polish defeat in 1939, the 4th Infantry Division was reconstituted in France, under the command of Stanisław Franciszek Sosabowski. The 4th was assigned to a training camp in Parthenay, in western France. The French high command was reluctant to give the 4th Infantry Division weapons sorely need at the front, so the 4th was forced to train with pre-World War I weapons. By the time of the German invasion of France, only around 3,500 men, out of 11,000, of the 4th Division had been armed. When the impending French defeat became apparent, Sosabowski ordered his forces to retreat to the Atlantic coast. 6,000 Polish soldiers were evacuated from La Pallice, a harbor near La Rochelle, France.[1] In June they were evacuated for England, and the 4th Infantry Division was again reconstituted in Scotland, under the Polish I Corps, along with the Polish 1st Armored Division, the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, and the 16th Independent Armored Brigade. The 4th Division was charged with coastal defense of eastern Scotland, against the threat of a German invasion from Norway. This western incarnation of the 4th Division saw no combat after the defeat of France in 1940, and was inactivated in 1947"
some details in polish language: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Dywizja_Piechoty_(PSZ).

I´m not sure, but it looks like that 4th polish division was not part of partially phantom armies... see list of mixture real/fictional units used for Fortitude North- "invasion" in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... tude_North
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ar ... tude_North

I understand the the division was incomplete (see link with polish wiki), but what a pity that they didn´t fight.
I went through my Nafziger's Order of Battle of the British Army from 1944-45. There is no 4th Polish Division listed at all. One would have thought that the Polish Corps in Italy could have used these troops. By April, 45 the two (3rd, 5th) Polish Divisions in Italy had finally raised six Infantry Brigades. They could have used the 4th Division's troops as a Cadre to get there sooner. There was no 16th Polish Armor Brigade listed either. Until we see better data, I am going to assume both were used to hold replacements for the fighting units.

By the way, the French Army did not have enough Artillery, Antitank weapons or Signals to arm the new divisions they were raising either. They were lucky to get to the UK.

Pruitt
Ad Polish dividision as a possible alternative to use for siege of Dunkirk instead armoured (CzechoSlovakian) brigade

According wiki this unit nominally was part of I st Polish corps, not part of IInd Polish corps. According polish wiki this unit transfer some (armored/mechanized) part to 1st polish divison during May 1944. Using 4th division as the replacement unit is possible, till VE-day 1945 according wiki this unit was completed to 80% standards. Maybe some other information should be found in information related to head of this unit http://historiapolski.eu/viewtopic.php?t=3622 (=former name of this unit was "2 Dywizja Grenadierów Pancernych (kadrowa)").

Conclusion: I think we both agree that during autumn 1944 there were very few alternative to use for siege of Dunkirk instead armoured (CzechoSlovakian) brigade - I think during conditions that French goverment don´t want strategic bombing/massive using of heavy altillery against Germans in Dunkirk, because Dunkirk was last undamaged port in France in English Channel/La Manche.


---
My personnal opinion some years age was fully of doubts/questions why Dunkirk wasn´t captured and why for siege was used armoured brigade. Also according memories of some Czech and Slovaks veterans they prefer to fight in Germany (and liberate cca hundreds thousand Czechs and Slovaks who were in Germany in concentration camps and/or as the forced labours).
But after years and after my visiting Dunkirk area I have to change my mind. My opinion is dividied to situation to Winter 1945 and after Winter 1945

1. Situation during September 1944-February 1945 - Using armoured unit to besiege numerical superiority Germans was very suitable and smart
I change my mind when I investigate - Using armoured unit (i.e. with tanks and APC) during situation that some 4,5 thousands regular soldiers (CZ-SK) and cca 6 thousands irregular soldiers (french/belgian partisans) fight against cca 12-13 thousand Germans who have significant numerical superiority in heavy/medium artillery. And during situation that during autumn/winter 1944 Allied were in logistical crisis (=most of liberated atlantic ports were mostly damaged, as Allied made advance so lengthen the supply line, no one port for transcontinental traffic was available). So my opinion is the tanks/APC prevented potentional of small unit actions besieged Germans which could damaged allied supply line routed near Dunkirk).
So, the goal to eliminate attack from besieged Dunkirk to Allied logistics was achieved.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ball_Express (=despite fear from Germans infarty/partisans attack just only Germans attacks were from Luftwaffe) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_l ... y_Campaign

2. Situation during February 1945 - VE day - My mind is that CZ-SK should be replaced and used to support and/or grow up Allied advance to Germany during Winter/Spring 1945. Probably for homeland French (FFI) unit.
During winter 1944/45 the logistics situation was improved (increase of supply (Antwerpen) and reduced consumption because of winter). And allied advance (captured Walcheren island, delta of Scheldt river) made that besieged Germans were very far from rest Germans. And CzechoSlovaks armoured brigade had some unique skills (knowledge of Hamburg area, Elbe river, improve strenght from 4,5 to 6,5-7 thousand men and knowledge of German language in most of CzechoSlovaks).

3. "What if"
So it should more effective to exchange CZ-SK brigade for some other allied unit, probably inexperienced infarty with combination of converted (heavy/medium) AA artillery (because of surplus of AA unit due reducing of V-1 attack).
I agree that British / Commonwealth unit probably haven´t available infarty unit (because what was available was for other WW2 purpose like op Doomsday). Maybe French (FFI) had some unit and had surplus of soldiers. So French army made active ops against Germans who were far far away from rest of Germans and near besieged Germans were no Allied neuralgic bases (compare with Pluto pipeline near Dunkirk) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantikfestung.
For example some part of the French/US attack unit cca 75 thousand which were used against Royan (1000 km far from Rhein river) should be used to besiege Dunkirk http://codenames.info/operation/venerable/
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poche_de_ ... e_de_Grave

I´m not sure if will be suitable to use Dutch unit to besiege Dunkirk (because better impact of using this unit should be in the Netherland to rush attack to Germans) According wiki in Netherlands Germans maintan hundreds thousand army (some estimated of POWs till VE-day was 120 thousand Germans only in Netherland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... rld_War_II).


As you wrote, dear Mr. Pruitt, "the French Army did not have enough Artillery, Antitank weapons or Signals to arm the new divisions they were raising either"... For besiege Dunkirk the not need huge amount of these sort of equipment. Because British had surplus of artillery (AA artillery after reducing V-1 attack to UK). And Germans in Dunkirk had none or very small amout of vehicles (and horses were "transformed" for meals) so numerical superiority Germans with medium/heavy artillery was useless for attack against allied logistic. Germans in Dunkirk had no tanks/APC.
But more important for siege Allied unit was amphibious equipment because Germans connect inland and sea channel for systematic flooding field in contact with Allied. See some maps (red line Allied unit) http://hartmann.valka.cz/udalostiww2/cz ... kerque.jpg. Accoring my personal inteview with CZ-SK veterans from Dunkirk the suddenly and fast flooding field in combination with huge amout of firing heavy artillery was best weapon of German.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Czechoslovak army

#36

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 May 2018, 14:37

Hi Pruitt,

You say, "I don't see the troops being raised for service in Indochina as being ready to go anywhere yet." Surely, that is precisely the point? These were not "being raised" but were experienced African troops with little to do before they could be sent to Indochina. They were both capable and available, if the political will was there and the logistics could be sorted out. I suspect that, however capable and available they may have been, the British would not have welcomed the diplomatic complication of having US-equipped, French troops under command at this point.

The British did not only use Canadian troops to take channel ports. The simple fact was that, as the Canadian Army was on the Allied left flank, it was troops under its command, not all of which were Canadian, that were necessarily used to either capture or seal off the Channel ports. (The fact that the British Commonwealth troops were on this flank was not entirely a coincidence. The British had appreciated early that the left flank would give them an occupation zone in north-west Germany and all the German ports. The US was slower to pick up on this long term consequence and later had to get Bremen and Bremerhaven allocated to it so that it, too, had control of a German port.)

Yes, the French were largely re-equipped with American weaponry from 1943. I think they had eight divisions-worth delivered, but spread it round more than just the eight divisions originally allocated it in order to field a bigger army. This might be where your 10 divisions comes from.

Cheers,

Sid.

Pruitt
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 22 Mar 2018, 02:00
Location: Tarkington Prairie, Texas

Re: Czechoslovak army

#37

Post by Pruitt » 05 May 2018, 16:00

The North Africans would have had to give their American weapons to Frenchmen coming in. It would have taken time for French weapons to be found to rearm. The factories/depots making these weapons would have been in France. You can't disarm the French colonies to rearm the displaced African troops. Besides there was no available shipping to send these troops to Indochina. The Chinese and Indian Army had to be sent.

The Americans signed an agreement to arm 10 French divisions and the arms were sent. In the case of the five armor division sets that were sent, the French were able to field four armor divisions and kept one as a replacement/training unit. The five Infantry division sets were handed out to the four North African Divisions and one French division. There was one division armed with British arms (Division Leclerc). That means there were at least four division sets available to arm the Metropolitan French with French weapons.

My statement about there not being enough weapons and signal sets for French Divisions refers to 1939-40. The French were busily creating Light Infantry Divisions out of regular and reserve units. There were some French Army divisions located in Vichy that were disarmed, but I don't see the Germans leaving this where the French could access it easily.

Nafziger Collection has an excellent book on the French Army that covers the whole WWII period. It covers many countries and if you choose wisely, it is affordable.

Pruitt

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Czechoslovak army

#38

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 May 2018, 17:19

Hi Pruitt,

The weaponry was found for the Alpine Front and sealing off the Atlantic fortresses. If Dunkirk were a priority, the manpower and means were available. According to p.394 of Rearming the French, some 15,000 African troops were withdrawn to the south of France over the winter of 1944-45 to prepare for a return to Indochina.

As a matter of interest, why would it be necessary to disarm the French colonies? The units concerned were already armed and had already campaigned in Italy and France. They were only not at the front over 1944-45 because (1) they were presumed not to be well suited to winter warfare and (2) because French prestige demanded that as many metropolitan French units be used against the Germans as possible.

There clearly were alternatives to using the Czechoslovaks at Dunkirk, but not to have used them would have left them (1) unexposed to the seasoning advantages of light combat and (2) completely non-contributary to Allied victory even though fully armed and equipped.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. It appears that eight French divisions were issued with US equipment in North Africa in 1943 and three more in France in 1944. There were originally to have been ten so equipped in North Africa, but the formation of two was abandoned in early 1944 in order to provide manpower for support services to keep the other eight in the field.

Pruitt
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 22 Mar 2018, 02:00
Location: Tarkington Prairie, Texas

Re: Czechoslovak army

#39

Post by Pruitt » 06 May 2018, 01:18

The Alpine region had a large FFI contingent which was renamed the 27th Alpine Brigade and then the 27th Alpine Division. The Terrain pretty well kept any serious fighting away. The 27th Alpine did not need a bunch of new weapons. The North African Divisions were not renamed, but Metropolitan French were drafted into the ranks. I don't now how well it was done. There is a region in Southwest Germany that the Algerian Division went through that left a LOT of mixed race children behind. If all the Algerians were gone, how did mixed race children get there? In Italy the Goums caused a lot of complaints about their behavior. In North Africa the Goums were more of a Police Force (ie African Rifles) but supposedly were not on salary. The were allowed to rape and loot instead. The French ended up sending North African whores to service the units.

French weapons were in short supply in Metropolitan France as the Germans removed most of them. I was saying that even if you disarmed colonial troops in Africa, you would still be short on numbers. Also a factor is a lot of Frenchmen were drafted into the Labor Service and sent to Germany. There were not a lot of young, prime age males in France in 1944-45. I would opine the drafted men were mainly very young and middle aged.

The French had to raise a lot of support troops from scratch. Look at a TOE of any other Army in France/Germany and see how few there were. They assumed the Americans and British would continue to support the French Army. I recall they used a lot of women as drivers and signals operators. Not many Africans could drive vehicle.. The French 2nd Division Blindee was armed in the UK with American weapons, keep this in mind when you count North African division getting American weapons.

Pruitt

liska
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Mar 2018, 18:21
Location: brno, czech rep.

Re: Czechoslovak army

#40

Post by liska » 06 May 2018, 13:56

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Pruitt,

The weaponry was found for the Alpine Front and sealing off the Atlantic fortresses. If Dunkirk were a priority, the manpower and means were available. According to p.394 of Rearming the French, some 15,000 African troops were withdrawn to the south of France over the winter of 1944-45 to prepare for a return to Indochina

....

There clearly were alternatives to using the Czechoslovaks at Dunkirk, but not to have used them would have left them (1) unexposed to the seasoning advantages of light combat and (2) completely non-contributary to Allied victory even though fully armed and equipped.

Cheers,

Sid.
Priority of the French Goverment is the key. I guess that:
First priority was to protect Dunkirk as the operational port after WW2.
Second priority (save lives of civilians) was mostly achieved by evacuation cca 18 thousand of civilians from Dunkirk during October 1944.
Third priority (protect supply chain lines) I think was great priority, but seems that French govertment have no faith that half-trainded French army could to defend possible german counterattack from Dunkirk. And only Dunkirk pocket 12 thousand germans was only real threat to Allied logictics (rest of Germans pockets with cca 90 thousand germans were too far).

But during January/February 1944 role of Dunkirk pocket was decreased. Walcheren/Schledt were captured by Allies, Antwerpen port was operational plus Ostende. Germans counterattacks Wacht am Rhein/Nordwind failed and better weather increase impact of Allied aircraft superioty.

So I think that that combination of 15-20 thousand half trainded soldiers French army plus heavy artillery´s unit (from surplus of UK AA unit after end of V-1 campaign) could be sufficient to besiege of Dunkirk from February 1945. Why French goverment don´t decided to send more soldiers to Dunkirk is question.

Maybe it could be interesting some "soft factor" which don´t allow to send FFI units against Germans. I´m mean my opinion on some processes of "uniting/creating" French army, which probably were not ended before VE-day.
- disarming/demobilization of some overseas soldiers (like Senegalese troops) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchime ... coloniales
- adoption of usual army rules against political tensions (like rule: no democracy in Army) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fo ... al_tension
- some temporary regional objectives for regional units FFI (?look for collaborants?) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forces_fr ... FFI_locaux

Probably it looks that formation of French army (for after-war purposes) were higher priority for French goverment than send rest French army against Germans = to exchange skilled Allied units which could be send to Germany (like 1st Polish armoured division from Netherland or especially CzechoSlovak soldiers,from Dunkirk to used their unique knowledge of some parts of Germany to faster advance to Germany and using their language skills due that Germany forcibly transported to Germany cca 1-2 millions of workforce from Poland, Czech, Slovakia)

"From Resistance to Regular army
The plans laid down for gradual recruitment in France (of volunteers and constricpts) were wholly overtaken in the summer of 1944 by a totally unexpected event - the spontaneous, massive expansion of the Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur - FFI.
...
Estimated at 100.000 men at the start of June 1944, the total strength of FFI exploded during the summer: by July there were 200.000 men under arms, and by October nearly 400.000.
...
It would take several months to integrate FFI units into the regular army. ... The amalgamation begun in October 1944 was now complete.
...
The first FFI division were soon created on the secondary fronts (Brittany, the Atlantic pockets and the Alps) simply by grouping "

Ian Sumner, Francois Vauvillier. Men at arms 318: The French Army 1939–45 (2), pages 35-39, Osprey 1998
in this book is also table with list of created unit. According this list there were cca 40 infarty regiments used for secure of communication lines. And there were also 23th division created in January 1945 which was used against 5000 Germans in Royan (=1000 kilometers far from Rhein), or 1st division (consisted mostly from partisan units) created in December 1944 which saw no action till VE-day

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Czechoslovak army

#41

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 May 2018, 13:26

Hi Pruitt,

It was not North African troops that were withdrawn, many of them came from the Atlas Mountains, but the Senegalese, who came from hotter tropical climes. Morroccan and Algerian divisions advanced well in to Germany and even Austria in 1945.

Metropolitan France may have had few available weapons. but French North Africa presumably had at least eight divisions-worth available as they had been replaced by US weaponry. The real problem for the French was heavy weapons and they used considerable numbers of captured German artillery pieces against the Atlantic ports.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Czechoslovak army

#42

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 May 2018, 13:35

Hi liska,

You write, ".....seems that French govertment have no faith that half-trainded French army could to defend possible german counterattack from Dunkirk." Certainly in 1944 the FFI forces deployed against the Atlantic ports were too ill-equipped to repulse German raids looking for food. However, by 1945 they had confined the Germans pretty effectively.

Pride was very much to the fore of French thinking at the time. For example, they conducted quite unnecessary assaults on the German Atlantic fortresses in the very last days of the war purely in an attempt to clear all French soil of Germans before they surrendered everywhere. I suspect they would have been more than happy to conduct the siege of Dunkirk themselves had their allies agreed and the resources been available.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”