How were Czech armoured units deployed?
Moderator: John W. Howard
How were Czech armoured units deployed?
As everyone knows, the Panzer divisions in May 1940 had a fairly large proportion of 'inherited' Czech tanks in service. But how did the Czechs organise their tank forces prior to the Germans taking over their country? Did they have armoured divisions with motorised infantry and artillery units accompanying them or were they just distributed piecemeal throughout their army?
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
They formed Fast Divisions, like all European countries who used this concept they were a mix of tanks/motorised units & cavalry units. On top of that they had one infantry division fully motorised and one partially in 1939.
http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/czechoreparmy.html
Alex
http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/czechoreparmy.html
Alex
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Liam,
Although they developed good equipment, the Czechs do not seem to have developed the necessary armoured philosophy to use them to full effect. The inclusion of horsed cavalry in the Rapid Divisions is a good indicator of this.
In September 1938 only two of the Rapid Divisions were approaching full strength. Another, based in Slovakia, was badly understrength with obsolete LTvz34 light tanks and the fourth included armoured training and demonstration units.
1st and 2nd Rapid Divisions played a key role in moving rapidly to suppress an uprising by Sudeten Germans in mid September 1938 and one (4th?) was also moved quickly to Bratislava in March 1939 in a failed attempt to prevent Slovak secession. If nothing else, they justified their existence in terms of internal security.
Cheers,
Sid.
Although they developed good equipment, the Czechs do not seem to have developed the necessary armoured philosophy to use them to full effect. The inclusion of horsed cavalry in the Rapid Divisions is a good indicator of this.
In September 1938 only two of the Rapid Divisions were approaching full strength. Another, based in Slovakia, was badly understrength with obsolete LTvz34 light tanks and the fourth included armoured training and demonstration units.
1st and 2nd Rapid Divisions played a key role in moving rapidly to suppress an uprising by Sudeten Germans in mid September 1938 and one (4th?) was also moved quickly to Bratislava in March 1939 in a failed attempt to prevent Slovak secession. If nothing else, they justified their existence in terms of internal security.
Cheers,
Sid.
Some small points in defence of the 'Fast' type divisions.
They were developed by many Central and East European countries because they couldn't afford to fully mechanise their formations not because they didn't understand manouevre warfare.
Also it was an attempt to give these nascent armoured units a reliable exploitation force.
In fact, faced with these constraints, the inclusion of cavalry (in reality mounted infantry) is much better than the other troop type of choice - bicycle units - who merely arrived in battle already tired out from their exertions.
Much of our prejudice against them comes from two things;
1. Western attitudes about 'backward' nations still using horses in warfare (the Germans usually quietly ignore their reliance on horseflesh here
)
2. Imposing the British and French experience of the fighting in 1940 onto everyone else. Sort of 'Well if this was such a big surprise to US then nobody else can have been prepared for it!'.
Although, on balance, the problems inherent in organising such diverse formations outweighed the advantages the Soviets made effective use of Cavalry-Mechanised Groups in the first half of their war which argues that the inclusion of cavalry does not, in itself, indicate a lack of understanding of manouevre warfare.
They were developed by many Central and East European countries because they couldn't afford to fully mechanise their formations not because they didn't understand manouevre warfare.
Also it was an attempt to give these nascent armoured units a reliable exploitation force.
In fact, faced with these constraints, the inclusion of cavalry (in reality mounted infantry) is much better than the other troop type of choice - bicycle units - who merely arrived in battle already tired out from their exertions.
Much of our prejudice against them comes from two things;
1. Western attitudes about 'backward' nations still using horses in warfare (the Germans usually quietly ignore their reliance on horseflesh here
)2. Imposing the British and French experience of the fighting in 1940 onto everyone else. Sort of 'Well if this was such a big surprise to US then nobody else can have been prepared for it!'.
Although, on balance, the problems inherent in organising such diverse formations outweighed the advantages the Soviets made effective use of Cavalry-Mechanised Groups in the first half of their war which argues that the inclusion of cavalry does not, in itself, indicate a lack of understanding of manouevre warfare.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Alex W.,
You make some fair points.
There were clearly constraints that prevented several small central European states from developing full armoured divisions in the 1930s.
However, from what little one can gauge from their actual use they were not well prepared for mechanised warfare.
If memory serves me correctly, according to March 1938 Austrian plans against an attack from Germany (Fall DR?) their one Rapid Division was to rush from Vienna into a bridgehead at Linz, where it would have been tied down immediately. It would probably have been better deployed as the only mobile reserve behind the River Traun, which was the planned main line of defence.
When the Czechs moved against the Sudeten German uprising in mid-September with two Rapid Divisions, the cavalry and mechanised elements had to operate in different areas because the former couldn't keep up with latter.
Whilst these are not very substantial examples, they do imply that central Europeans, like the French, British, etc., had not yet fully grasped the possibilities and necessities of mechanised warfare.
I would be interested to know how the Hungarian Hussar Division, which also had a mixed OB, managed to co-ordinate its armour, cavalry and bicycle units in heavy combat in 1944.
Cheers,
Sid.
You make some fair points.
There were clearly constraints that prevented several small central European states from developing full armoured divisions in the 1930s.
However, from what little one can gauge from their actual use they were not well prepared for mechanised warfare.
If memory serves me correctly, according to March 1938 Austrian plans against an attack from Germany (Fall DR?) their one Rapid Division was to rush from Vienna into a bridgehead at Linz, where it would have been tied down immediately. It would probably have been better deployed as the only mobile reserve behind the River Traun, which was the planned main line of defence.
When the Czechs moved against the Sudeten German uprising in mid-September with two Rapid Divisions, the cavalry and mechanised elements had to operate in different areas because the former couldn't keep up with latter.
Whilst these are not very substantial examples, they do imply that central Europeans, like the French, British, etc., had not yet fully grasped the possibilities and necessities of mechanised warfare.
I would be interested to know how the Hungarian Hussar Division, which also had a mixed OB, managed to co-ordinate its armour, cavalry and bicycle units in heavy combat in 1944.
Cheers,
Sid.
Didn't the German light divisions field KAvallerie-Schützen Regimenter in 1939 ? If those were equipped with horses than please read on.. If they weren't.. than notify me and I will edit this post 
Seems to me that the Germans, only through experience in actual combat (i.e. not during the "Anschluss" or the occupation of Sudetenland etc.) learned that that combination with horses and armoured vehicles wasn't feasible to work with.
The germans obviously did field Armoured divisions/Corps in 1939, but weren't themselves sure about the best composition until after the Polish campaign when the light divisions were disbanded in favour of the Panzerdivisions
Seems to me that the Germans, only through experience in actual combat (i.e. not during the "Anschluss" or the occupation of Sudetenland etc.) learned that that combination with horses and armoured vehicles wasn't feasible to work with.
The germans obviously did field Armoured divisions/Corps in 1939, but weren't themselves sure about the best composition until after the Polish campaign when the light divisions were disbanded in favour of the Panzerdivisions
Talking specifically about the Czechoslovakians they were faced with two choices in the 1930's.
1. Build a large mobile army to resist the Germans
2. Build border fortifications to try and hold them off long enough for their alliances to count.
They took the view that 1 wasn't really an option because of the relative sizes of the populations and the land mass of the country available to them. This left 2 which they well knew had its disadvantages if the Germans broke through.
However, they had to choose one approach and they went for no. 2 because it involved less disadvantages for them than no. 1.
There is nothing magical about 'mechanised' warfare it's just another name for manouevre warfare and we've been doing that since at least the Battle of Kadesh between the Egyptians and Hittites.
1. Build a large mobile army to resist the Germans
2. Build border fortifications to try and hold them off long enough for their alliances to count.
They took the view that 1 wasn't really an option because of the relative sizes of the populations and the land mass of the country available to them. This left 2 which they well knew had its disadvantages if the Germans broke through.
However, they had to choose one approach and they went for no. 2 because it involved less disadvantages for them than no. 1.
There is nothing magical about 'mechanised' warfare it's just another name for manouevre warfare and we've been doing that since at least the Battle of Kadesh between the Egyptians and Hittites.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Alex W.,
My impression is that the Czechs tried to do a bit of everything. They were building their own Maginot Line like the French and they were building as high a proportion of their army as armoured divisions as the Germans. Like them, it designed and produced almost all its own aircraft, artillery and military transport.
However, Czechoslovakia was too small a country to compete with major powers in all these fields despite efforts at rearmament that were beyond any attempted amongst the other Allies.
Cheers,
Sid.
My impression is that the Czechs tried to do a bit of everything. They were building their own Maginot Line like the French and they were building as high a proportion of their army as armoured divisions as the Germans. Like them, it designed and produced almost all its own aircraft, artillery and military transport.
However, Czechoslovakia was too small a country to compete with major powers in all these fields despite efforts at rearmament that were beyond any attempted amongst the other Allies.
Cheers,
Sid.
Calling the Czech defences a 'Maginot Line' is misleading.
Although the earliest structures in the Czech defences are based on Maginot line designs they were soon working on their own and developed, amongst others, what we usually call the 'Skoda bunker' that the Germans copied and installed in the Atlantic Wall.
There's a restored example near Opava that's well worth a visit.
They simply never had the manpower to construct the large typical of the Maginot Line instead their approach was modern with belts of defences and obstacles, many of them anti-tank which belies the claim they didn't understand 'mechanised warfare' .
A good site is http://www.bunkry.cz - 'Odkazy' is Czech for 'Links' plough through that and you'll find some English language sites but the pictures are usually very good whatever language it's in.
Although the earliest structures in the Czech defences are based on Maginot line designs they were soon working on their own and developed, amongst others, what we usually call the 'Skoda bunker' that the Germans copied and installed in the Atlantic Wall.
There's a restored example near Opava that's well worth a visit.
They simply never had the manpower to construct the large typical of the Maginot Line instead their approach was modern with belts of defences and obstacles, many of them anti-tank which belies the claim they didn't understand 'mechanised warfare'
.A good site is http://www.bunkry.cz - 'Odkazy' is Czech for 'Links' plough through that and you'll find some English language sites but the pictures are usually very good whatever language it's in.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Alex,
From memory, Czech study of military history is highly developed. I have a couple of excellent booklets on the Czechoslovak fortifications in Slovakia and Moravia, which are part of a whole series on Czech inter-war fortifications.
I seem to remember that there is an official military history quarterly (Istoria e Vojentsvi?) that has published a great deal on the inter-war Czech army and that the late Istvan Bajtos (a Hungarian from Kosice, now in Slovakia) drew an extensive range of plans of Czech armoured vehicles in the 1980s. I also remember that a Czech modeling magazine (IPM?) was of an exceptionally high standard in the late 1990s. The aircraft museum (at Kbely?) was very good and the military museum in Prague had an interesting list of Czechoslovak casualties in 1938-39, showing that the Czechoslovaks did not succomb to the Germans, Poles and Hungarians entirely without a fight.
I also had a coup when I found a history of the Protectorate Army in Italy in a Prague second-hand bookstore.
There is much more to Czechoslovakia over 1938-45 than is generally known in the English-speaking world.
Cheers,
Sid.
From memory, Czech study of military history is highly developed. I have a couple of excellent booklets on the Czechoslovak fortifications in Slovakia and Moravia, which are part of a whole series on Czech inter-war fortifications.
I seem to remember that there is an official military history quarterly (Istoria e Vojentsvi?) that has published a great deal on the inter-war Czech army and that the late Istvan Bajtos (a Hungarian from Kosice, now in Slovakia) drew an extensive range of plans of Czech armoured vehicles in the 1980s. I also remember that a Czech modeling magazine (IPM?) was of an exceptionally high standard in the late 1990s. The aircraft museum (at Kbely?) was very good and the military museum in Prague had an interesting list of Czechoslovak casualties in 1938-39, showing that the Czechoslovaks did not succomb to the Germans, Poles and Hungarians entirely without a fight.
I also had a coup when I found a history of the Protectorate Army in Italy in a Prague second-hand bookstore.
There is much more to Czechoslovakia over 1938-45 than is generally known in the English-speaking world.
Cheers,
Sid.
Agree totally, Sid. I'm only just getting into it and deliberately restricting myself to the first republic & fortifications for now but you invariably come across other stuff & think 'oh, that looks interesting'. The next time I'm in Prague without the family I'm thinking of visiting the sites associated with Anthropoid (did you know that Roger Bushell of Great Escape fame was picked up in Prague in the aftermath) I've been to SS Cyril & Methodious but it was closed on the day I wentThere is much more to Czechoslovakia over 1938-45 than is generally known in the English-speaking world.
so I only got to view the outside.Alex