Talk:Charge at Krojanty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Account

Here is an account of the battle which formed the basis of the "cavalry charge" item.

"Both myths are creations of German and even Italian propaganda and are very far from truth. Polish cavalry was active during the campaign and acted as horse mounted infantry. One of the most successful cavalry charges took place at Krojanty, where elements of 18th Uhlans Regiment attacked and destroyed German infantry battalion only to be counterattacked by German armored unit. Uhlans attempted to withdraw and suffered light losses. This event lead to the story of Polish cavalry charges on panzers. Polish Airforce was deployed at numerous airfields and although numerically inferior and partially obsolete was very active during the course of the campaign (e.g. over Warsaw). Polish pilots shot down in combat over 137 enemy planes. Polish cavalry brigades never charged tanks with their sabres or lances as they were equipped with anti-tank weapons such as 37mm Bofors wz.36 (model 1936) anti-tank guns (that could penetrate 26mm armor at 600m at 30 degrees). The cavalry brigades were in the process of being reorganized into motorized brigades." (source: George Parada, Invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss), http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/polcamp.htm) --Uncle Ed 16:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED to Charge at Krojanty, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed from Polish war myth to something like Polish-German battles or German war propaganda or Battle of Krojanty. --Uncle Ed 16:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Zaloga calls it "Small Skirmish of Krojanty". Moved accordingly. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Our naming conventions suggest the use of battles even for such events. Please use WP:RM and feel free to ask for other opinions at WP:MILHIST.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This was not a battle, it was minor action within the Battle of Tuchola Forest. The event is only notable for being blown out of proportion (like the claims that the whole 800 strong German regiment was wiped out). Besides, much of the article is covered at Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_Charges_and_Propaganda. -- Matthead discuß!     O       07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I did most of the work for you, you only have to list this WP:RM here and we're there. //Halibutt 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Done at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#2_November_2007. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Shall we vote now or what? Personally, I'd support Charge at Krojanty, as that name seems to be the second most popular after Battle of Krojanty. OTOH most skirmishes are called battles in wikipedia, regardless of the number of men on both sides. Just take a look at the articles related to American Civil War: there are zillions of battles with less people involved than, pardon my comparison, in an average European bar brawl or wedding fight. Yet, they are called battles. //Halibutt 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Charge would probably be more descriptive; I think it's an idea worth considering.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So... do people favor Charge at Krojanty for the title of this article? If so, I'm ready to close this request. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Charge.. is an acceptable compromise, though as noted above, "Battle.." is somewhat more wiki-canonical. Keep a redirect from "Battle.." of course. --Ling.Nut 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Result: Victory??

I find the article a bit contradictory. How can it be claimed to have resulted in a Polish victory when it is clearly stated that the Polish forces retreared after coming under artilery fire. The Polish contigent may have been able to slow down a German unit for some time but they did not stop or capture the unit, nor did they prevent it from fighting on as part of the September Campaign. Victory during a battle generally means the opposing army was captured, defeated, or at least took heavy losses or sustained major damage - none of which is confirmed by the article. --Nikostar 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like 'inconclusive' would be a better choice. Halibutt?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If the figure of 600 of the ~800 Germans KIA or WIA is correct, then I would define that as heavy losses, especially compared to the 60 Poles KIA/WIA. --x-Flare-x{Talk) 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It all depends whether we consider the German AFV fire after the Polish charge a part of the battle or not. Feel free to reword whatever you please as there indeed is something fishy here. Halibutt 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


From a certain point of view the Poles were "victorious". The task for them was to win time, so other units could retreat before the fast advancing German forces. Actually the attack did not only slow down the Germans. They did not follow the Poles that evening. So Polish Cav. fullfilled their mission. But of course the casualties were so high that it is uncertain if the "success" justified such sacrifices. --Memnon335bc 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the infobox the Polish casualties were 20 killed and 40 wounded and that doesn't sound very high to me compared to the alleged 600 killed or wounded Germans. --x-Flare-x{Talk) 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious mistake i the table. The whole German Infanterie-Regiment (mot.) 76, which was the German force involved had only one bataillon of about 800 men at Krojanty. The German casualties are actually not recorded and this is the reason, why in the German Wikipedia as well as in the Polski Wikipedia there are no German casualties to find in the table. It is unlikely that the losses were a higher number for the bataillon performed well in the following weeks of the campaign. Probably the German casualties were far lower than the Polish. Also the Polisch losses are given as between 80 and 100 soldiers in the foreign language articles, which seems quite logical as the Germans kept the battlefield after the battle, so they were able to take many prisoners including the wounded. --Memnon335bc 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User Jinxs changed the German casualties in the table from "unknown" to "unknown, but heavy". What I miss is a source for the statemant that they were "heavy". If there is no source (and so far I never saw any) this has to be changed in the table. --Memnon335bc 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

There are several mistakes in the article. For example the Germans did not move towards Gdansk. The Poles did not receive machine gun fire after the attack, but during the attack. The German unit (by the way III. Bat. of Infantry-Rgt. 76 (mech.) was also not resting in the woods. Also there were no APC's around, because in 1939 there were only few of them and those were attached to the tank divisions (mostly 3rd Armoured Division). There were actually Armoured Reconnaissance vehicles. Gen. Guderian mentioned Polish Cavalry in his memoires, but it was the 2nd Motorizid Division to the south, which considered a tactical retreat, not the 20th motorized Div. The Polish troops did not retreat to south, but to the North-East. There has never been an Chojnice Operational Group as it is said in the article (far down).

In case someone wants to learn more about this, just let me know. --Memnon335bc 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to edit this article and correct the mistakes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As to O.W. Chojnice, it could be roughly translated as either Separated Unit Chojnice, Independent Unit Chojnice or any similar name. Operational Group, however, is not the best term here indeed. //Halibutt 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

-- Matthead  DisOuß   04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This should certainly be added to the article. Interesting how such a minor skirmish has nonetheless attracted attention, isn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The editwarring of folks who can not contribute anything other than automatic "rv" surely can not be called minor anymore. No >3RR today, sorry. The skirmish itself was, is, and remains minor, in WW2 standards, and even in the standards of the very same day. Only reports published much later blew it up to a "myth". The article needs to trace the propaganda stories better. Also, coverage of the military aspect is needed, with "20.Inf.Div.(mot.) reaches the area northwest Czerkiew and Konitz. Fights with polish 18.Ulan-Rgt. at Krojanty with heavy losses for the enemy. Secured Nowa-Czerkiew and Konitz later on." and [3]. Hey, thats what everybody was looking for. German propaganda machine has been so effective that it still sends aftershocks throughout the Internet more than sixty years after the events. Also, tall tales like "decided to take the enemy by surprise", for example, should be reworded as "overeager commander neglects recon and sends his men into disaster". -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)