6/25    For the guy asking for sources on Polish cavalry charges vs. tanks
        being a load of hoo-haw:  David Irving's claims about this were
        debunked pretty well by Tom Strasnov.  Also, the March 2007 issue of
        Strategy & Tactics (issue 241) has an article by Mark Lardas called
        "Polish Cavalry Charges in WWII" which makes this point with good
        primary sources.  Another reason for the persistence of this myth was
        the Polish film "Lotta" post-WWII (Soviet-sponsored to make the
        Polish officer corps look bad.)  Cavalry units quickly evolved into
        tank hunters; generally they used horses to move but fought on foot
        (except in the few instances, like Krojanty, Mokra and a few other
        battles.)  Regarding the battle of Krojanty (correct, wikipedia entry
        has no primary sources), look at Heinz Guderian's book (Achtung,
        Panzer!) as I believe it has a first-hand account how he had to send
        reinforcements from keeping large numbers of the 20th mot. infantry
        division from breaking and running.  link:tinyurl.com/2vkjfj also
        has some good info on this.  Yes I was bored.  -John
        \_ Thanks.  I do appreciate you taking the time to provide real sources
           and I happily stand corrected on my original statement re: tanks vs.
           cavalry.  It pushed a button seeing an unsourced wikipedia entry
           being used as an authoritative source.  Anyway, so it was German
           mechanised infantry vs. cavalry which still makes my point about
           German military superiority.  In this battle it threw the Germans
           due to shock value but it isn't the kind of thing that can be
           repeated successfully.  The idea that the Germans weren't militarily
           superior to their neighbors, including the USSR, is laughable.  I
           do apologise for using a bad example.
           \_ The German equipment was inferior and there was less of it
              against the French, the Soviets and the Americans. This is not
              laughable, this is historical fact. German tactics, strategy,
              morale and leadership was superior. That is why they did
              as well as they did. -ausman
              \_ German tanks and planes were not really inferior, especially
                 at the start of the war.
                 \_ Most (not all) were, and laughably so.  The main AFVs
                    were the Pz.I and II, with a smattering of Pz.38(t)s
                    captured during the Czech occupation.  The Wehrmacht
                    had a few Pz.IIIE and Fs, armed with the 37mm KwK36
                    (which couldn't penetrate the armor on most French tanks.)
                    In fact, its only advantage was a 3-man crew.  During the
                    Polish campaign, the vast majority of German forces were
                    foot-borne infantry with a bunch of motorized units.  The
                    Me-109E was a good plane for its time, but the E-1 and E-3
                    models in service in May 1939 were about "on par" for
                    tech of the age.  Likewise the He-111.  As ausman pointed
                    out, German success was due to a mixture of numbers,
                    combined arms ops as an innovation, surprise, chutzpah,
                    and a bit of luck -- look at the battles of Arras and
                    Stonne for what happened to the Germans when met with
                    reasonably similar forces and without the element of
                    surprise.  -John
                    \_ Unless are a student of WWII history, you might not
                       know what all that means. But the German panzer force
                       was overwhelmingly machine gun mounted tanks, which
                       were useless against other tanks. The French had more
                       tanks overall than the Germans and the French tanks
                       were better armed and armoured, the French just didn't
                       know how to use them. I have to check back on air force
                       stats for the Battle of France, but I remember that
                       the combined French/British air fleet was roughly
                       numericly on par with the Germans, and the British
                       fighters were better. The Stuka was a superior tactical
                       bomber, but mostly because the Germans invented dive
                       bombing. Similar statistics were true on the Russian
                       front at the start of that war, too. -ausman
           \_ 'Superiority' is not a scalar quantity.  Surely the Germans
              had technological superiority on every front on June 22nd 1941,
              but even a year later that was no longer true.  The Russians
              introduced a lot of cheap, but extremely effective innovations
              which the Germans later copied, and Americans ignored at their
              peril (barrel chroming, wide tank tracks, sloping armor,
              'cannery' submachine guns, etc). -- ilyas
           \_ It actually was repeated several times.  Cavalry is a tool
              that has a place in modern warfare.  You don't charge tanks
              with it, any more than you send unescorted tanks into urban
              warfare or attack entrenched machine guns with massed infantry.
              As for equipment, Ausman and ilyas are partially right, the
              Germans had heavy tech superiority in a few areas in the
              Polish, French and Russian campaigns, but generally success was
              due to a combination of superior German conduct of warfare and
              sclerotic, inferior leadership and training on the opposing side
              (i.e. in Poland's case, deciding to defend the borders instead
              of the Vistula, for France never having perfected combined arms
              ops despite vastly superior tank tech, and for the Russians,
              wiping out half their officer corps in stupid purges, to name
              a few examples.)  I didn't want to sound pedantic, but this is
              one of several common misconceptions about military realities
              that are propagated by convention, such as Japanese suicide
              pilots being locked into their planes, etc.  -John
              \_ Note that the Russians used Light Cavalry (Cossack)
                 units to great success in WWII, especially as a mobile
                 support element to provide small arms cover for tanks,
                 as well as the traditional cavalry role of raiding, scouting
                 and supply line interdiction. We are even using horse
                 mounted infantry today in Afghanistan, though not really
                 in the traditional cavalry role. -ausman
                 \_ "Mounted infantry".  -John
                    \- hello, you may enjoy also reading about
                       the Battle of Suomossalmi.
                       \_ Suomussalmi.  What's your point?  Pack horses? -John
                    \_ Yes, I used my words carefully there. -ausman