Hello Sorry, meant that the Finns were far better equipped for the arctic conditions that the Russians, where many froze to death and their tanks & trucks etc. froze. I take your point about the great skills of the Finns, that was never in doubt; I was merely suggesting that the inexperienced, recently-purged and demoralised Red Army of 39-40 would have suffered an excess of casualties against any opposition, especially in an hostile geographical. environment. (Have you heard the story about the Finn who was shot five times in the chest managing to walk to the Field Ambulance, for the intense cold stopped him bleeding to death?) Cheers Richard
Originally posted by Glosters@Aug 22 2004, 08:14 AM ...The Red Army overwhelmed everyone they went up against - except the Finns... [post=27556]Quoted post[/post] In the Polish-Russian war of 1919-1920, the Poles beat the red army.....
Originally posted by Rebel@Aug 22 2004, 05:33 PM In the Polish-Russian war of 1919-1920, the Poles beat the red army..... [post=27575]Quoted post[/post] Hey Rebel. Thanks for value judgment about Poles but we have to remember that the Red Army of 1920's wasn't the Red Army of 40's
The British infantry were not the best in my opinion (unless if you count SAS as infantry). If you include SAS as infantry, they were probably one of the best- all their missions they did alot of damage with almost no loss. The Finns were also rather good. Their statistics were amazing. Sorry Richard, I think the Russians were as prepared for the winter as the Finns.
(Have you heard the story about the Finn who was shot five times in the chest managing to walk to the Field Ambulance, for the intense cold stopped him bleeding to death?) David hackworth in his autobiography tells the story of when in Korea, he was badly wounded but he claims that it was the extreme cold which kept him alive by stopping the bleeding.
Undoubtedly! The best infantry came from the Third British Infantry Division,They fought from Sword Beach to Bremen, took part in every battle in the war in Europe, (The only Divisiion to do so) suffered more casualties. earned the name of "The Iron Division" Later "Monty's Ironsides" Seldom talked about, not even reported in Normandy even though they were one of the two British D Day assault Divisions, on Sword. the other being 50 Div TT Tyne Tees. on Gold. It was then the one regular Infantry div, with a long history. It was also by the way, the only Division trusted with what arms could be raised after Dunkirk. It is still the primary div in the British army, its last commander, General Mike Jackson, Old stone face! now CIC British Forces. Its previous commander being Field Marshal Montgomery. hence the name "Monty's Ironsides" after the war in Europe, there was no peace for them, for they were promptly sent off to Palestine. Fine fighting troops that were never reported, or made famous in films, or TV. But still the best infantry in the world, bar none, If you get the chance to read the book Assault Division? then read it. Though it is out of print and if you come across one, it will cost you! Sapper. late of; 246 Field Company. Royal Engineers. Eighth Brigade. Third British Infantry Division Swprd Beach to Bremen.
Originally posted by sapper@Nov 10 2004, 04:02 PM The best infantry came from the Third British Infantry Division Monty's Ironsides: from the Normandy Beaches to Bremen with the 3rd Division by Patrick Delaforce, Chancellor Books edition, 1999, is still available from Postscript Books online for the discount price of £6.99 (cover prive £16.99). Although not well indexed as far as units are concerned, on a quick flick through I found one reference to 246 Field Company and there are probably plenty of others. I found this book very interesting and it gives detailed accounts of quite a number of actions, including plenty of passages from letters and diaries and later accounts. Well worth £6.99. I have found Postscript very reliable to deal with and they sell a very interesting and constantly changing list of discount books. See: http://www.psbooks.co.uk/BookDetails.asp?C...gn=1%23Nav23850
Fine fighting troops that were never reported, or made famous in films, or TV. But still the best infantry in the world, bar none, men who fought in North Africa, Scilly, italy would disagree with that. the same as members of the 14th army in the Far East.
Originally posted by sapper@Nov 10 2004, 11:02 AM It is still the primary div in the British army, Sorry to disagree with you there, Sapper, but the 3rd Division has long been out of existance in the British Army. (the 3rd was also an outstanding division 1914-18, by the way) B.
Hi Bayern. The old Third British Infantry was brought back into being as the Third Uk Division. To carry on the proud traditions of that old div, it's commander was General Mike Jackson as I stated earlier. To ensure that it carries that tradition forward, the old Third Div Red and black triangles are the same divisional insignia worn on the sleeves, as the war time "Iron Division" Exactly the same. I can also tell you that beside me as I write I have a book sent to me by General Mike Jackson. The book is entitled "Iron Division" The History of the Third Div 1809-1989. by Robin McNish with additional material by Charles Messenger It is signed; With all good wishes. MIke Jackson. 18th of July 1995. Major General. GOC Third (UK) Divisiion. Sapper
I stand corrected, Sapper! I'd forgotten about the "armoured" divisions. Being an infantry footslogger, we've had "titled" rather than numbered divisions since the 1970s(?) B.
Interesting Bayern, for although they brought it back to continue the old infantry div..The old iron div....Now is bears litttle resemblance to the old one. I must admit to being very proud to have served with them. General Jackson with the signed book, also sent me a list of what the div is made up of now, It can be described as an "All Arms Division" For it has eveything a fighting force would need with recourse to other branches of MH forces. Cheers. Sapper
Modern day divisons are designed to be "all arms" due to the nature of the warfare that they can expect to face. In the recent Defence Reviews announced by Geoff Hoon, army units will undergo drastic changes similar to those made to the RAF in the 1957 Defence Bill. the net result of the proposed changes will be that British forces shall be nothing more that a adjunct to the US Army/Navy/Air Force.
For me, the "All arms" divisions seems to be an excellent idea. Why? well, in the old days the armour, the air force, were all quite separate, and needed time and trouble to bring them together, Often we found that the armour had a quite different idea of what was needed, and went their own way. The idea of a unified command is imminently appealing. If nothing else, it should at least reduce the incidence of so called “Friendly Fire! Sapper
Originally posted by sapper@Nov 12 2004, 10:32 AM For me, the "All arms" divisions seems to be an excellent idea. Why? well, in the old days the armour, the air force, were all quite separate, and needed time and trouble to bring them together, Often we found that the armour had a quite different idea of what was needed, and went their own way. The idea of a unified command is imminently appealing. If nothing else, it should at least reduce the incidence of so called “Friendly Fire! Sapper [post=29397]Quoted post[/post] The ways of warfare are changing, we seem to be going away from set piece battles to "small unit" actions, which does away with the need for larger units like divisions. Also, the best example of "all arms" units were the Germans in 1940. As for "friendly fire" even today with all the advances made, there are still incidents of "friendly fire", except they now call them "blue on blue".
Blue on Blue, I never knew that, I wonder where that comes from? I think it fair to say that the battles from Normandy onwards, were conducted in much smaller units, apart that is from the "Arty" They were big units! Thank heavens! sapper
Originally posted by sapper@Nov 13 2004, 05:49 PM Blue on Blue, I never knew that, I wonder where that comes from? I think it fair to say that the battles from Normandy onwards, were conducted in much smaller units, apart that is from the "Arty" They were big units! Thank heavens! sapper [post=29418]Quoted post[/post] the expression "blue on blue" comes from the vietnam war. The last major "friendly fire" in the british Forces was during the Falklands, when a SAS patrol met a SBS patrol in the dark near Goose Green. Small unit actions were common place in North Africa and italy but the tactic was to reinforce as soon as possible. A perfect example of those tactics in Action was the Battle of Monte Cassino
Originally posted by morse1001@Nov 13 2004, 01:15 PM the expression "blue on blue" comes from the vietnam war. The last major "friendly fire" in the british Forces was during the Falklands, when a SAS patrol met a SBS patrol in the dark near Goose Green. I believe the term originates from the use of the colour blue to denote friendly forces on military maps. Did this SAS/SBS exchange result in any casualties, as I can't find much about it? One from the Falklands that I do know about (a mate of mine was involved in it!!!) was between two company's of III Para during the days running up to the assault on Mt.Longdon (several casualties). There have been several incidents since '82 (one of which I was very nearly involved in in Northern Ireland) but they try to keep them out of the news (unless it's the US forces who perpetrated it!!!). "Blue on Blue" is also a term now used by the British police force to denote the same. B.
