Our Forgotten Allies (Poland)

New York Post ^ | 22 December 2003 | Ralph Peters

[Lando Lincoln]

The odds were grim. Many of King Jan's nobles feared disaster. But Sobieski risked his kingdom - actually a rough-and-tumble democracy - to save a continent.

On that fateful afternoon, the Polish cavalry struck the Turkish lines with such force that 2,000 lances shattered. The charge stunned the Ottoman army. A hundred thousand Turks ran for the Danube.

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[SAMWolf]

Polish Bump

[1rudeboy]

bttt

[Cronos]

Have you noticed that Jan Sobieski stopped the slammies on Sep 11-12? I.e. on 9/11 or 9/12?

OBL chose 9/11 because that's the day the slammie advance was stopped. he wanted to restart it.

[DoctorMichael]

Bump.

[SaucyCranberry]

I hope the plans to open bases in Poland (and Czech Republic) come to fruition before my DH retires from active duty and we have the honor of being guests in their country.

[Cronos]

Exactly, we also stiffed the Poles after WWII when we let the Russians take Poland. It's a wonder that the Poles have forgiven us for that. I say we should give proportional amounts for proportionate help -- so that puts the Brits and Poles on par with us. The others are on the next rung -- valued but they must recognise that the Poles gave more so deserve more.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Is this the same Ralph Peters who wrote Red Army and The Devil's Garden? Both books were very well written, and this article seems to have the same flavor.

I knew that Poland has been providing a great deal of assistance in Iraq, but I hadn't realized how badly we'd stiffed them in return. It sounds like World War Two all over again. In the 1920's and 1930's, the United States, Great Britain, and France were so obsessed with "peace" that they refused to sell military equipment to Poland. As a result, when the Nazi Panzers surged into Poland, the Polish military was forced to send lancers to face one tank column. Needless to say they were massacred, but they did not turn back. Now Poland is facing a similar situation and it looks like we are snubbing them all over again.

[DoctorMichael]

I didn't really notice it until I read about this event a few years ago, but.........

.........Kinda reminds me of Tolkien's climax to the 'Siege of Helm's Deep', where the Riders of Rohan charge down the hill into the assembled host of Orcs. Knowing Tolkien's penchant for European History, I wonder if he had THIS in mind?

[VOA]

Our Forgotten Allies (Poland)

Anyone who simply depends on the usual suspects (TV, NYTimes) for their
news could be forgiven for thinking there are only US and UK soldiers on site.
Besides, it's Democratic politicians who repeatedly laugh at all the "little,
nothing countries in our Coalition".

If a Polish, Spanish, Italian, etc. soldier kicked the @$$ of one of these journalists
or Democratic pols, I vote "not guilty!".

[Daus]

In the words of an American officer who works closely with them, "Poland has taken to the Iraq mission for idealistic and principled purposes: Its leadership and military truly believe that freedom and justice are universal values worth fighting for."

The author can't have this both ways, either the Poles are in it for the principle or for C-130 modernizations? My guess is it's truelly for the former.

One things that's telling given the history outlined, is nothing builds a better skilled military, than actually taking it out the field occasionally. :)

[snippy_about_it]

We never forget our Polish Allies at the FReeper Foxhole!

The FReeper Foxhole Remembers the Katyn Forest Massacre (Poland~1940) - October 13th, 2003

The FReeper Foxhole Remembers Case White - The Invasion of Poland(9/1/1939) - Sep. 1st, 2003

The FReeper Foxhole Remembers The Warsaw Uprising (Aug-Oct, 1944) - August 1st, 2003

The Freeper Foxhole Profiles - Major-General Stanislaw Sosabowski - July 31st, 2003

The FReeper Foxhole Remembers The First Battle of Monte Cassino (Jan-Feb 1944) - Aug. 5th, 2003

The FReeper Foxhole Profiles Casimir Pulaski - Mar. 15th, 2003

[bobo1]

we ought to remove all our troops from those that have no appreciation for us (i.e. Germany/France?) and support our friends like Poland. It would be beneficial to both countries.

We need to support those that support us.

Blessings, bobo

[gogeo]

The author can't have this both ways, either the Poles are in it for the principle or for C-130 modernizations?

That's a supremely shallow conclusion.

[omega4412]

"Poland has taken to the Iraq mission for idealistic and principled purposes: Its leadership and military truly believe that freedom and justice are universal values worth fighting for." To how many other nations would those words apply?

Romania? Didn't they support the overthrow of Saddam because they thought of him as another Ceausescu?

[matrix2225]

As in old times, Poland is what it is, alone country reject and improvise. My country trust Great Britain and France in 1939, we trust them in 1945, thought Sikorski was killed already. Andersen was smart enough to take man away from soviets, and then there was Monte Casino, and other battles that were thought. And then came 1945, how many of brave polish soldiers were kick out from Great Britain. Diwizjon 303, 301, etc. How sad it is to see, what is happening. Oh well, last word belongs to God!

[snippy_about_it]

Anyway, America has a real friend in Poland. Do not lose it, for goodness sake!

Thanks Matt, you know we love you!!!!

[matrix2225]

Here is something interesting for your freepers.

Though arresting and colorful, little in this description is accurate about tactics.
I am both astonished and interested that the Hussars, as it happened, were consistently able to defeat much larger foes with low losses, and suffered surprisingly low losses from the fire of squares of infantry protected by pikemen. For example at Kircholm, where about 100 Poles perished and some 200 were wounded, the losses of the Swedes are estimated at from 6 to 9 thousand men.

In order to solve this riddle, several things need to be considered. First, the very limited efficiency of firearms in this time. Second, that the hussars were able to minimize the effect of fire. It is best to consider a concrete example, a typical situation from the turn of the XVI and XVII C.

A Banner with 200 hussars attacks a regiment of infantry with 600 men (400 musket and 200 pike). Infantry was prepared at this time for battle in shallower formation than common at an earlier period (at the start of the XVI C. some infantry squares were 50 columns by 50 ranks. 10 ranks were common. The shallower formation of 6 (or at most 10) ranks had the advantage of more men participating in the fight in the first ranks, plus some maneuverability benefits. Muskets were covered by at least 3 ranks of pike.

Why so many rear ranks? The number of ranks resulted from low contemporary firearm rate of fire, sometimes as low as 1 shot in 2 minutes. The number of pikes dropped, just to have the minimum necessary to hold off an attack of hostile cavalry. The proportion went from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 and even lower. To maintain continuous fire, an infantry tactic was developed in Western Europe called 'counter-march'.

The expectation was that each of the 6 or 10 ranks would step forward and deliver fire, while the remaining ranks loaded weapons. The rank that fired then fell back to the rear to reload. The only requirement is room between columns for the counter-marching. When this scheme works, the formation can deliver continuos fire every 20 seconds, whereas individual ranks would take an average of 2 minutes per volley.

What was the distance between columns of infantry in formation? The Foote columns were 1.5m apart. One reason was to have free space for loading weapons; the second was to be able to pass to the rear rank after firing. The pike covered the musketeer, but only when danger threatened from hostile cavalry or pikemen. So, 9 ranks with such spans between columns by a regiment of 600 occupied a front of about 100m of ground.

How did the hussar banner stand? It was prepared in this period to fight in 3 or 4 ranks (though it could be deeper). Let's accept that there were 4 ranks. The distance between horses was at least the length of a horse. (Just before impact there came a very curious moment - more about that later). This distance enabled:

-About-face, so that it was possible in each moment to interrupt an advance or charge, without commotion in ranks.
-Bypass of unexpected barriers on the way, even wounded bodies, and human or equine corpses.
-Visibility made it easier to keep rank position.
-It enabled bypassing opposing cavalry (to enter the ranks) during a charge.
This distance is a 4 meter interval (3 meter open space between riders) between horses in rank (with 200 men in 4 ranks).

In the first rank, the position of honor, were the ‘comrade’ hussars, with their retainers ‘pocztów' in column behind. Of course the front rank was exposed to infantry fire the most. The rear ranks were somewhat protected from frontal fire. How did they charge? An analysis is presented in the following figure. (Note that the pikes are too short for scale, although the lances are correct)

In typical conditions the hussars charged from about 375 m. It crossed the first 75 walking (stepie), the next 150 trotting (klusem), then a canter (cwale), breaking into a gallop. The charge is completed at a canter for the final 30 meters. Only the leading ranks galloped, the back ranks proceed only at a canter. Why did they charge this way?









It is necessary to save the horse’s strength, which is quickly lost at a gallop or fast canter (one says the horse is 'blown'), but sometimes must suffice for multiple charges, in withdrawal or on final pursuit of a defeated foe. Also, the breaking power of the banner's impact depended on its density of formation. At the walk, trot, and canter it is easier to maintain formation than at a gallop. Simultaneous contact of the whole front is particularly important against a hostile square of pikemen.

Sometimes the second rank moved forward to double-up with the first. What did this give? It made up for losses in the first rank but more importantly it doubled the density of the line. It gave maximum density of troopers in this moment (distance less than 1.5 meter; contemporary chronoclers say ‘knee to knee’), and that provided the greatest formation-breaking power.

In the low-density scenario, there are more than 2 or pikes per lance, but with the higher density it gets closer to 1-to-1. The width of the front of the banner fell to about 130-140m, but it was greater than the 100m width of a regiment of infantry. The wider front of the banner allowed the hussars to outflank the infantry regiment. It's known that an impact on a flank of any formation - infantry or cavalry - is more forceful than if only to the front.

Fragment of image painted in 1630 by Peter Sayersa - battle of Kircholm. Hussars attack Swedish infantry
The assumption in the West was that it was not possible for cavalry to fall on a pike formation. Since the pike and lance were the same length, before the knight reached the pikeman, his horse was impaled on the pike. This situation looked like bad news to the contemporary western European cavalry, who wholly abandoned the lance.

As it happens, the situation was different with the hussar. The Hussar's Lance was constructed differently than medieval lances, as its center was bored out to save weight, and it was longer than its precursors - many were even 5.5m long- but were still lighter than western lances. (Examples exist to the present day). At the same time, the tendency of the pike was to become shorter in the West. So, the hussar could hit a pikemen before the pike reached his horse.

But this is not all. If it happened that hussars knocked out the first rank of pike, two ranks remain to defend the musketeers. How did the hussars overcome this? Several answers are possible. First they were put in a dense formation so that they were not greatly outnumbered by the pikemen. Some hussars had intact lances after the collision, and could continue the offensive on the other lines of pikemen. Secondly, even broken lances were 2-3 meters long, and even if its hit was not mortal, it could cause considerable mutilation and elimination of the pikeman from battle. Third, the possible breakdown of the pikes on the flanks could roll up the whole formation. The final consideration is the second blow that can be delivered by the fresh rear ranks of the hussar formation.

All these factors probably played some role but the sum effect was the breaking of the enemy formation. It should be remembered also, that even if the break did not happen in first charge, the hussar could fall away from the opponent, regroup as the second rank hit, and come back to attack again the partially disrupted formation of infantry. Even western cavalry sometimes managed this feat (though seldom), the hussars seem to have mastered it and achieved good results consistently. It should be sufficient to acquaint the reader with descriptions of battles in which hussars faced western infantry, in order to dispose of any doubt.

How the Hussars Fought
By: Radoslaw Sikora

"We saw it…. the hussars let loose their horses. God, what power! They ran through the smoke and the sound was like that of a thousand blacksmiths beating with a thousand hammers. We saw it…. Jezus Maria! The elite's lances bent forward like stalks of rye, driven by a great storm, bent on glory! The fire of the guns before them glitters! They rush on to the Swedes! They crash into the Swedish riters…. Overwhelm them! They crash into the second regiment - Overwhelmed! Resistance collapses, dissolves, they move forward as easily as if they were parading on a grand boulevard. They sliced without effort through the whole army already! Next target: the regiment of horse guards, where stands the Swede King Carol. And the guard already wavers!

--Description from Potop "Deluge" Henry Sienkievich.