WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The Interwar Period (1920-1940) > Romania 1940 - the Possible War: Romanian Army

Posted by: Agarici July 18, 2005 06:06 pm

The main purpose of this topic is to reconstitute the organization diagram of and to present the equipment (models, quantity) used by the Romanian army (land forces) in 1940. Any INFOS and PHOTOS are welcome.

Posted by: dragos July 18, 2005 06:25 pm

Before or after the reorganization which started in September 1940, after the territorial losses ?

Posted by: Agarici July 18, 2005 06:44 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jul 18 2005, 06:25 PM)

Before or after the reorganization which started in September 1940, after the territorial losses ?

This is a good point, thanks. I'm interested in and ask for your cooperation for the period BEFORE September 1940 (so also before the reorganization). I think the period after the organization in big lines already covered by the site, being its main focus. For this topic, we should focus on the period around the Soviet ultimatum and the Vienna dictate, when Romania could have been involved in an open conflict with its neighbors (thus in the general European war).

Posted by: Agarici July 18, 2005 09:30 pm

ROMANIAN ARMY 1940 - ORGANIZATION&ORDER OF BATTLE

ORGANIZATION:

- 21-22 infantry divisions (including 2 guard divisions, 1 created in 1940); another 9-10 divisions to be formed in case of general mobilization, constituting a total of 31-32 divisions
- 4-5 cavalry divisions (or 4 divisions and 1 brigade), 1 created in 1940
- 4 mountain brigades
- 1 (2?) mechanized brigade(s) - the first created October 1939, 2 mechanized brigades planned
- 2 tank regiments
- 6 pioneer brigades: 7 pioneer regiments, 1 bridge regiment, 2 railways transport/construction regiments, 1 aerial pioneer regiment (airfield construction), 2 mountain pioneer battalions, 1 fortifications pioneer battalion
- 3 communication regiments
- 1 frontier-guard division (+ or including 2 brigades?): 7 groups (22 battalions)
- 1 fortification brigade: 2 regiments

- Artillery:
• 21-22 artillery brigades (9-10 to be formed in the case of general mobilization?): approx. 21-22 artillery (cannons) regiments and 21-22 howitzers regiments - horse drawn
• 4-5 horse artillery regiments
• 6 (8) mountain guns groups (“divizioane”) + 3 mountain howitzers groups (“divizioane”)
• 7-8 army corps artillery regiments - motorized
• 1 fortification artillery regiment (brigade?)

ORDER OF BATTLE:

- 4 armies

- 10-11 army corps

- 26-28 divisions + 6(12*)-10(16*) brigades + 2(5**) independent regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 divisions would have been added to this total

and

- 21-22 artillery brigades + 13-16 artillery groups + 8-10 artillery regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 brigades would have been added to this total (?)

Notes:
* including the pioneer brigades which, by the French doctrine, were not combat/assault units
** including the communication regiments

Bibliography:

- Pascu, S., Ceausescu, I., Musat M.., Ardeleanu I. (coord.) - Istoria militara a poporului roman, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1989 (vol. VI)

- Pascu, S., Ceausescu, I., Musat M.., Ardeleanu I. (coord.) - Romania in anii celui de-al doilea razboi mondial, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1989 (vol. 1)

Observation: although the books mentioned were published before 1989, the data I used were backed by archive sources.

Any suggestions/corrections/detailed informations are welcome.

Posted by: Dénes July 19, 2005 01:59 am

In the book 'Documente privind istoria României intre anii 1918-1944', published by Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucharest, 1995, on page 534 and 535, there is a summary of a report compiled by the Rumanian Army's General Headquarters regarding the politcal-military situation of Rumania, report dated August 26, 1940. In it, a summary of the existing and necessary armed forces is listed. It might help your quest.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Iamandi July 19, 2005 09:03 am

Both topics are nice!

I read your post, Agarici, and i have a question: at that time was or was not some motorized artillery units?

I will check at home in "Istoria artileriei romane in date" book about that.

Iama

Posted by: dragos July 19, 2005 11:03 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Jul 19 2005, 12:03 PM)

I read your post, Agarici, and i have a question: at that time was or was not some motorized artillery units?

The process of motorization of the Romanian artillery was initiated in 1937, when at the autumn maneuvers, the field guns were towed by Fiat tractors and the 150mm howitzers were towed by Skoda tractors. The first motorized heavy artillery batteries were formed in 1938, and in two years (1938-1940), almost the entire heavy artillery (8 regiments and 6 battalions) was motorized.

Source: http://www.worldwar2.ro/organizare/?language=en&article=36

QUOTE (Agarici)

6 (8) mountain guns groups (“divizioane”) + 3 mountain howitzers groups (“divizioane”)

Artillery "divizion" is equivalent with battalion.

Posted by: Iamandi July 19, 2005 11:21 am

Exactly! In my mind was Skoda type tractors.

Iama

Posted by: Agarici July 19, 2005 01:16 pm

QUOTE (Agarici @ Jul 18 2005, 09:30 PM)

- Artillery:
• 21-22 artillery brigades (9-10 to be formed in the case of general mobilization?): approx. 21-22 artillery (cannons) regiments and 21-22 howitzers regiments - horse drawn
• 4-5 horse artillery regiments
• 6 (8) mountain guns groups (“divizioane”) + 3 mountain howitzers groups (“divizioane”)
• 7-8 army corps artillery regiments - motorized
• 1 fortification artillery regiment (brigade?)

Thanks Iama, your help will be appreciated. You can also see above, quoted from my previous post, the situation of the motorized artillery.

ROMANIAN ARMY 1940 - MOTORIZATION:

According to the quoted sources, there were various plans at the level of the Army General Staff regarding the motorization/mechanization of the armed forces. The Decree no. 828 from 10 February 1938 stipulated the creation of two motorized/mechanized brigades. Afterwards this solution was refined by planning:
- the motorization of the army corps artillery (at least 7 regiments, attached to the 7 army corps existing in 1938-1939 - so at least 90 motorized batteries, 45 Schneider “long” 105 mm model 1936 cannons and 45 Skoda 150 mm model 1934 howitzers batteries)
- the creation of motorized/mechanized cavalry detachments (regiments) for the cavalry divisions
- the creation of motorized recon groups for the infantry divisions
- the motorization of the division an army corps staffs
- the motorization of some supply columns

From these plans, until the beginning of 1940 was realized:
- the creation of the 1st Mechanized brigade (20 October 1939)
- the motorization of 7-8 heavy artillery regiments (subordinated to the army corps)
- the creation of motorized/mechanized cavalry detachments (regiments) for some cavalry divisions/brigades (?)
- the partial motorization of the divisionary recon groups (?)
- the motorization of corps (division?) staffs (?)

Also by the end of 1939 there were at least 4-5 motorized infantry regiments in the Romanian army. Since they exceeded the number of regiments normally allocated to an infantry brigade (3 regiments) the question is what happened to the second planned mechanized/motorized brigade? During 1940 the action of motorization continued. The creation of a “rapid” (motorized) division is also speculated, but was it organized prior or after September 1940, and what was its relation with the already existing mechanized/motorized infantry brigade(s)? Were there new heavy motorized artillery regiments organized (subordinated to the newly mobilized army corps/infantry divisions - from 7 army corps in 1939 up to 10-11 army corps in Summer 1940)?

Also was there any relation between the mechanized/motorized infantry brigade(s) and the 2 existing tank regiments?

Posted by: Agarici July 19, 2005 02:08 pm

ROMANIAN ARMY 1940 - ARMORED UNITS:

There were 2 tank regiments and 1 independent tank battalion, the later relegated to the training role since 1936-1937. The official formula used in the Romanian army was of French inspiration, “care de lupta” (“chars de combat/chars d’assault” in French).

The Army General Staff plans from 1937-1939 aimed to the organization of 2-3 tanks regiments and 1-2 tank divisions, seen as a mobile reserve at the General HQ disposition. For this purpose, different procurement orders were placed to different foreign manufacturers (Skoda, Renault, CKD) and there were also some initiatives to produce tanks or armored vehicles under license in Romania. Only a part of this procurement orders/initiatives produced material results.

In 1940, the existing situation was:

- “Regimentul 1 care de lupta” (1 tank regiment), created in early 1920’s: 2 battalions, 126 Skoda R 2 tanks (and a number of light recon tanks/armored cars - Skoda R 1, Skoda vz.27, Tatra?)
- “Regimentul 2 care de lupta” (2nd tank regiment), created at 1 November 1939: 2 battalions, 76 Renault R 35 tanks (and a number of light recon tanks/armored cars - Skoda R 1, Skoda vz.27, Tatra?)

The “FT training battalion” consisted in 76 Renault FT 17 tanks (45 armed with 37 mm guns and 31 with 8 mm MG’s).

Also according to an article from “Modelism” magazine (no. 25 - 4/1989), page 23, in 1937 a number of 75 modified CKD AH-IV light tanks (designated as “tancheta Skoda R 1” in the Romanian army) were purchased. They were distributed as follows: 10 pieces to the 1st Cavalry division, to the 2nd and 3rd cavalry divisions 11 pieces each, 9 pieces to the 4th Cavalry division and 35 pieces were retained by the Cavalry Training Center. It is possible that some of these 35 pieces were given (for recon missions) to the tanks regiments or to the mechanized/motorized brigade(s).

In the last half of 1939, at Malaxa factories started the production (under license) of a batch of 300 (ordered) Renault UE Chenillette - a light unarmed vehicle, projected to be used for supplying the motorized cavalry detachments/regiments with ammunition and fuel and for towing some of the imported or license produced Schneider 47 mm AT guns. According to this site, until the first half of 1941 a total of 126 pieces were delivered.

Posted by: Agarici July 19, 2005 02:13 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 19 2005, 01:59 AM)

Thanks, Denes. I haven't seen the book yet and I don't have acces to it right now, but I'll try to take a look at that document in the near future.

Posted by: Dénes July 21, 2005 02:32 am

There si another source you may want to consult (I haven't seen it myself):
Vartic, Gheorghe: 'Consideratii cu privire la starea inzestrarii armatei Române inaintea declansarii celui de-al II-lea razboi mondial', published in 'Studii de securitate, aparare nationala si istorie militara', Bucharest, 1999.
If you could find this source, let us know.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Agarici August 18, 2005 08:28 am

Does anybody have some relevant information about the organization of the Romanian armored and mechanized units, until Autumn 1940? More exactly:

- Were the two tank regiments included in larger units (brigades) or linked with a higher echelon, until the constitution of the 1st Armored division?

- What was the organization of the Moto-mechanized brigade (created in October 1939)? Was there a second unit of this type created until September 1940, as initially planned?

- What was the official doctrine of Romanian armoured&mechanized units? Even more specific, where were the young tank officers sent for specialization/studies abroad (if there was the case)?

Posted by: sid guttridge August 18, 2005 09:04 am

Hi Guys,

For some time I have been trying to establish the organisation of the various Romanian armies at the start of the withdrawal from Basarabia and Northern Bucovina in June and Northern Transilvania in September. (Southern Dobrogea is more straightforward.

However, although there are various general history books with maps, and a three volume edition of documents (Anul 1940......) I have never been able to establish which divisions were subordinate to which corps.

(For anyone wanting the Soviet order of battle by front, army, corps and division in June, see the book by Meltyukhov, which can also be found on the internet in full. It also seems to have a fair amount on the Soviet parachute drops around Bolgrad and Reni. If anyone can translate Russian, this might be of some interest here.)

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Victor August 18, 2005 09:12 am

QUOTE (Agarici)

What was the organization of the Moto-mechanized brigade (created in October 1939)? Was there a second unit of this type created until September 1940, as initially planned?

The 1st Mechanized Brigade, based at Turda, was made up of the:
-4th Motorized Vanatori Group
-11th Motorized Vanatori Group
-1st Motorized Artillery Regiment
-Special Tasks Battalion
-Recon Detachment
-Armored Car Company
-Motorized MG Platoon
-Motorcycle Platoon
-AT and AA Platoon

Each group was made of:
-2 vanatori battalions, each of 3 rifle companies, one machine-gun company, one heavy weapons company, one automobile company
-one tank battalion (31 tanks)

The artillery regiment had 3 battalions of 12 artillery pieces each.

There was a 2nd Brigade created in Targoviste for a short while.

QUOTE (Agarici)

- What was the official doctrine of Romanian armoured&mechanized units? Even more specific, where were the young tank officers sent for specialization/studies abroad (if there was the case)?

Since October 1919, all the tank instructors were Romanians. The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).

Posted by: Agarici August 18, 2005 09:31 am

Great piece of info, Victor! Thank you!

Posted by: Agarici August 18, 2005 10:02 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 18 2005, 09:12 AM)

QUOTE (Agarici)

What was the organization of the Moto-mechanized brigade (created in October 1939)? Was there a second unit of this type created until September 1940, as initially planned?

QUOTE (Agarici)

- What was the official doctrine of Romanian armoured&mechanized units? Even more specific, where were the young tank officers sent for specialization/studies abroad (if there was the case)?

Since October 1919, all the tank instructors were Romanians. The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).

Any additional info to what Victor has said?

Which was the relation between the two brigades and the two tank regiments? Were the tank battalions from the mechanized brigades belonging to them, or to the FT tank battalion (Victor mentioned something about the Renault FT 17 tanks being used from 1917 onwards…)? If the battalions mentioned by Victor (31 tanks per brigade) were part of the two tank regiments, how were used (envisaged to be used) the rest of the tanks from each tank regiment?

Were the “vanatori” motorized groups using trucks (what models) or other type of vehicles (half tracked maybe, if available by the time)?, And also, what type of armored cars were used?

Of what type/caliber were artillery pieces?

Posted by: Victor August 18, 2005 06:58 pm

Unfortunately the source doesn't mention what type of thanks they were. My guess is that they were R-2 tanks from the 1st Tank Regiment. My motives are:
1. it was basicly the most advanced tank available to the Romanian Army at that moment
2. the 1st Mechanized Brigade was later transformed into the 1st Mechanized Division and then into the 1st Armored Division, which operated R-2 tanks in the 1941 campaign

As for the trucks, they were probably Czech made: Tatra or Skoda. No half-tracks back then. Those were bought later from Germany.

The artillery pieces were probably the same that equipped the artilery regiment of the 1st Armored Division in 1941.

Too many ifs though.

Posted by: Agarici August 18, 2005 07:32 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 18 2005, 06:58 PM)

Perfectly plausible. Also if we add the number of tanks for each “vanatori” group (2x31, adding another 2x31 for the second brigade) the result is a total of 124 tanks, perfectly sustainable by the number of vehicles available for the 1st Tank regiment. And the armored cars could have been the Czech Skodas vz. 27 and Tatras vz.29, which took refuge in Romania (in what number?) after March 1939 (and also imported earlier?).

There’s still a question left: what was the role of the Renault R 35 tanks of the 2nd tank regiment? Were they included in a larger unit, like the R 2’s?

And a final question for this post: could the Relault UE/Malaxa chenilletes be used for troop transport? Were any other vehicles of that type in use until the imports of half-tracks from Germany in 1942? I remember that some time ago Denes posted a couple photos with some tractors under evaluation with the Romanian army in 1940… among them were two Czech models. Any info about that?

Posted by: Victor September 29, 2005 05:35 am

The armored cars are indeed a mistery. There were no armored cars in the Romanian 1st Armored Division in the 1941 campaign and in the first (and more important part) of the the 1942/43 campaign. This obviously was a major drawback.

There were obviously many other drawbacks, which reduced the combat capability of the 1st Armored in 1941. The lack of radios, of tacked tractors, of properly trained drivers etc, etc.

As for the Malaxa UE, these were used to tow 47 mm AT pieces of the divisional AT batteries IIRC. They were not used by the 1st Armored Division.

Posted by: Victor October 28, 2005 04:38 pm

Updated information:
1. the two tank battalions were indeed from the 1st Tank Regiment, tyhus they were equipped with R-2 tanks.
2. the 2nd Brigade existed only on paper.

Posted by: Imperialist November 03, 2005 12:13 pm

QUOTE (Agarici @ Jul 18 2005, 09:30 PM)

ROMANIAN ARMY 1940 - ORGANIZATION&ORDER OF BATTLE

ORDER OF BATTLE:

- 4 armies

- 10-11 army corps

- 26-28 divisions + 6(12*)-10(16*) brigades + 2(5**) independent regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 divisions would have been added to this total

and

- 21-22 artillery brigades + 13-16 artillery groups + 8-10 artillery regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 brigades would have been added to this total (?)

But what was the order of battle per se, in 1940? Were most divisions positioned "on the frontier" with USSR or with Hungary?

Posted by: Victor November 03, 2005 01:02 pm

I don't know about 1940, but on 23 September 1939, the Romanian Army was deployed in the following manner:

Hungarian border: 6 infantry divisions, 1 cavarly divisions, 3 mountain brigades, 1 cavalry brigade
Bulgarian border: 5 infantry divisions, 1 cavalry brigade
Soviet border: 16 infantry divisions, 2 cavalry divisions, 1 mountain brigade
Reserve: 4 infantry divisions

from Romania in anii celui de al doilea Razboi Mondial (Bucharest 1989), pages 260-261
(info posted by sid guttridge on an old Feldgrau discussion)

In Romania in al doilea razboi mondial by Dinu C. Giurescu, ALL Istoric, 1999 19 large units (divisions and brigades) are mentioned as deployed on the Soviet fronteer on 23 September 1939.

The 1st Motorized Brigade, after its creation in 1939, it was concentrated in Transylvania, opposite Hungary.

Posted by: Imperialist November 03, 2005 01:19 pm

I found an older post of mine with the august 1940 OOB:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2415&view=findpost&p=38094

I should mention though that the source doesnt offer a clear number. For the divisions deployed towards Hungary it gaves a 8-10 number, while for those towards USSR, 22-24.

Posted by: Pavel January 15, 2006 12:29 am

Gentlemen,

Does anybody know about composition of Romanian Cavalry Divisions and Cavalry Brigades in 1939-1940? As far as I understand, there has to be 9 brigades (4x2+1) and 27 regiments (9x3).
What we have for sure is Div. 4 Cav, consisting of Bg. 4 Cav (3C, 10R, 11C) + Bg. 8 Cav. Also we have Div. 2 Cav with 7R (data from Dan Grecu site).
Some of my own speculations:
1) 6R was deployed in Balti in 27-39 (Dan Grecu), so it is probably connected with Div.2 Cav.
2) 3R was deployed in Chisinau in 1939, being integral to Bg. 9 Cav - it means it was integral either to Div.2 Cav or to Div.3 Cav. I would suppose the former, so to start something with, let's assume D2C included B9.
3) Combining "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" deployment map (p.12) along with 1940 deployment map from "Eliberarea Basarabiei si a Nordului Bucovinei" (p.53), we could assume that Div.1 Cav included B1C.
Combining this with 1941 OoB, let's summarize assumptions:

D1C: B1C (???,???,???), ??? (???,???,???)
D2C: ??? (R6R?,???,???), B9C? (R3R!, R5R?,R13C?)
D3C: ??? (???,???,???), ??? (???,???,???)
D4C: B4C (R3C!,R10R!,R11C!), B8C (R2C?,R4R?,???)
B7C: (R11R?, R12R?, R9C?)

Here the end of possible speculations. Corrections please? Or additions (most welcome)?

Best regards

Posted by: Agarici July 29, 2008 12:44 pm

Is there any information concerning the number of ZB rifles available for the Romanian army by June 1940, or at least what percentage of the troops which were using them? All I’ve read until now on the site and forum are simple estimates and speculations. Thank you!

Posted by: dragos August 02, 2008 08:35 am

I don't have the number for June 1940 but by January 1940 322,000 ZB rifles have been delivered from Czechoslovakia, while other 107,600 were to be delivered during 1940.

Posted by: MMM January 20, 2009 01:04 pm

QUOTE

The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).

It is rather exagerated to call FT-17 tanks. Maybe cans...
As for the French doctrine, we have seen how that went on for them! Anyway, with the little number of tanks available to the Romanian Army, we couldn't do more than infantry support, right?
I've read in a book by Suvorov that at some point, the Red Army (incipient as it was) managed to capture at some point two FT's from the Romanians, and those were "baptised" as "Tank No.1, The fighter for freedom Comrade Lenin" and "Tank No.2, The fighter for freedom Comrade Trotsky". I found no further information on these "tanks", if I should call them so.
Have you?

Posted by: Victor January 20, 2009 03:07 pm

Suvorov is hardly a reliable source. The Romanian FT's were never engaged in combat operations against the Red Army. The Red Army's captured tanks were taken from the Whites most likely.

At the time the FT-17s entered service with the Romanian Army, they were by far the most advanced tank in the world. Also, the French armored doctrine in 1919-1920 was the most advanced of the time. Ofcourse, by 1940 they were obsolete, but the sentence you quoted was made in a different context.

Posted by: MMM January 20, 2009 05:07 pm

QUOTE

The Romanian FT's were never engaged in combat operations against the Red Army

That's what I knew, too... I am not sure, but I think the FT-17, as the doctrine, were way too old in the 1940's. Though Romanians still used FT-17 in 1942, while Wehrmacht were beginning to tame Tigers

Regarding the "misquote", you are right, but it was much too funny of an affirmation to be left unremarked. Right at this moment I try to compare the material basis of the armies in 1940, and it is useless to point out the fact that Romania was by far at the low end of the list; even the Hungarians had a better idea (as was seen afterwards, in practice they weren't better than us) of what mobility means. So I'm pretty nervous about the narrow-mindedness of almost all the leaders (civilian and military) in Bucharest.

Posted by: Victor January 20, 2009 05:39 pm

I fail to see what is so hilarious in that statement.

You may be surprised to find out that the "Tiger tamers" also used FT-17s for the same purpose the Romanians were using them in the 40s: security missions.

I am not sure, but in 1940 Romania still had more and stronger tanks than Hungary did. The Turans entered service later.

Posted by: Dénes January 20, 2009 07:12 pm

The two countries' armament in 1940 cannot really be compared.
Don't forget, Hungary was forbidden to have any tanks, military airplanes, cannon, etc. until Sept. 1938, while Rumania had all the time to keep and even develop its military force from 1919 on. Therefore, Hungary had only less than a couple of years to try to catch up with its antagonistic neighbour(s) until the possibility of the first real armed conflict with Rumania emerged in Aug. 1940.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 06, 2009 02:49 pm

I must point out that Hungary's situation was not unlike III-rd Reich's in what concerns the tanks: they began late, but they had the time to get themselves just the latest equipment, not the obsolete Romanian tanks of the time. Even if they entered in service at a later time, as Hungary didn't have the the slightest intention to attack Romania on themselves, but only as a satellite of Germany.

Posted by: Victor February 06, 2009 03:44 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2009 04:49 pm)

Like I already said, in 1940 Romania had the edge over Hungary in terms of armor. I would also like to see you support the opinion that Hungary had the "latest" in terms of tanks compared to Romania.

Posted by: Dénes February 06, 2009 07:38 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2009 08:49 pm)

...Hungary didn't have the the slightest intention to attack Romania on themselves, but only as a stellite of Germany.

That's false.
Hungary did have the intention to recover Transylvania, or a larger part of it, even by force, if peaceful means would not have succeeded - without the assistance of Germany. She became emboldened by the success of the Soviet ultimatum addressed to Rumania in regards of Bessarabia and Bukovina.

Another misconception is that in the late 1930s Hungary was a staunch ally of Germany. False again. At that period, relations between Germany and Hungary were lukewarm, at best (for example, Horthy - a seasoned, high ranking commanding officer of the "old school" - had no respect whatsoever for the "Caporal". Hitler did not look at the Hungarians with much empathy either). Relations with Berlin "warmed up" only from mid-1941 on, with the anti-Soviet attack (BTW, Hungary was not part of Hitler's original attack plans in June 1941, only Rumania and Finland were).
A couple of years earlier it was Italy who was Hungary's most important ally (see, for example, the origin of most of the Hungarian army's foreign weaponry). I leave the comparison of the tank forces and their striking capacity to Victor. All I would only like to state that there are no comparison grounds between Hungary and Germany of the late 1930s, from the arming point of view (be it armour, aviation or anything else).

Finally, as I stated earlier, Hungary started to arm de jure only from Sept. 1938 on (de facto from the mid-1930s), while Rumania had all the time from 1919 on (it's another point how well did she use this time); moreover, Rumania had an anti-Hungarian military alliance with other countries surrounding Hungary, which clearly exceeded the combat value of the Hungarian armed force.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos February 06, 2009 11:48 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 06, 2009 10:38 pm)

Hungary did have the intention to recover Transylvania, or a larger part of it, even by force, if peaceful means would not have succeeded - without the assistance of Germany. She became emboldened by the success of the Soviet ultimatum addressed to Rumania in regards of Bessarabia and Bukovina.

Did Hungary elaborate a military plan of invasion of Transylvania in the case you mentioned (without the assistance of Germany) ?

Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2009 04:45 pm

As is stated in "Politica de aparare a vestului României 1930-1940" by col. r. C-tin Mosincat, Hungary has made plans to atack Romania without german aid in late '30's. Romanian strategists also took into consideration a hungarian atack without warning (atac bruscat) in the same period. A very posible time for an early hungarian atack was in 1939, but it seems hungarian strategist made the decision to wait because in the same period was made a mobilisation exercise by romanian army. Hungarian evaluation of the situation had to be reevaluated because they were surprised by the high response of romanian recruits to the mobilisation. The romanian mobilisation plan was to call one contingent, but two more contigents presented to the baracks without being called, showing the high state of spirit in romanian population ranks. Calculating also the strenght of the newly build "Carol II" fortified line, hungarian strategist decided not to atack.

As it usually happen with the "fog of war" the reality was that the two contingents presented by free will to the baracks actually embaraced the movement of romanian army, causing dificulties in housing, feeding and equiping the great number of recruits. Also the "Carol II" fortified line was not ready and capable to stop an atack, giving the fact that a lot of armament was not instaled in the bunkers, the field mines were not available, the barbed wire was far from suficient, there was not even by far enough AT guns and specialised troops for manning the bunkers. If hungarian strategists would know entirely the real situation, it is probable that the hungarian atack was to be launched in 1939.

In the book is not detailed what were exactly the hungarian atack plans, it is stated only that the troops were in the position for the atack toward Transilvania and that the plans existed.

Posted by: Dénes February 07, 2009 05:39 pm

There was no reality in the Hungarian attack to happen in 1939. Remember, Hungary officially started to arm herself only in Sept. 1938. It's certain that any possible attack was not called off by the high number of enthusiastic Rumanian recrutes (BTW, Hungarian recrutes were similarly enthusiasts on the prospect of recovering Transylvania). However, by mid-1940, a military attack was a reality, and would have broken out in August 1940, had the Vienna arbitrage not came in effect.
It is also worth to mention that a military attack was the last resort, as the official Hungarian policy was peaceful territorial revision through diplomacy.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos February 08, 2009 12:07 am

It would be interesting to know the grand battle plan of the Hungarian side, because military actions against Romania, without foreign intervention in view, in 1939 and even 1940, would not advantage the Hungarian side in my opinion.

Posted by: Agarici February 08, 2009 12:10 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 07, 2009 05:39 pm)

Sure, “admiral" Horthy despised “corporal” Hitler, and that was the focal point of the relations between the two states, regardless the fact that (according to the same corporal and his friends, capt. Goring and J. Ribbentrop) Hungary didn’t stand the slightest chance in a conflict with Romania, not only without German support but even without direct German intervention. But wait, I’ve just heard the gossip that corporal Hitler and that Mussolini guy didn’t get along well too… so I wonder why some idiots persists in saying that Italy and Germany were allied?!?

And of course, 1939 German official policy was diplomatic negotiations and the peaceful (re)incorporation of Gdansk/Danzig. What a shame that the Poles have initiated their gangster-like aggression and forced the Reich to defend and punish the aggressors… If only the Romanians would have been wise enough (as could have been reasonably expected from their part) and accept the transfer of Transylvania to the Hungarians, after the bilateral negotiations, allowing the peace-loving Hungarian government to avoid resorting to violence (oh wait, but in fact they have reserved the use of violence for after the occupation of the province, against the civilians). And perhaps if they would have included, say, Oltenia too as a bonus/compensation, they could have put the corner stone for a new partnership alliance with the government of the friendly admiral.

Seriously now, Denes, could you please make an effort to cut short this kind of pseudo-mythical propaganda and not to consider us all as being entirely ignorant or idiots? Let’s move on from the level of debating the holiness of the Hungarian kings and their mission on earth in the name of God (or that of the Steven the Great of Moldavia), moving preferably upwards.

Posted by: dragos February 08, 2009 12:37 am

Agarici, please do not flame the topic.

I, too, do not believe that Hungary made plans to invade Romania alone, without foreign intervention, like a concomitant attack of Soviet Union in Bessarabia, because alone the chances of success would be slim. It is of the essence to know the details of the Hungarian grand battle plan.

Posted by: Dénes February 08, 2009 07:19 am

QUOTE (Agarici @ February 08, 2009 06:10 am)

Denes, could you please make an effort to cut short this kind of pseudo-mythical propaganda and not to consider us all as being entirely ignorant or idiots?

With this sentence you only characterised yourself, Agarici.

For the sake of the integrity of this forum I will not call you (indirectly) idiot and ignorant, so not to add fuel to the fire you just started.
All I am suggesting you is to try to open a bit your mind, read as many different sources as possible, and don't believe everything that is written in certain category of Rumanian books (which is entirely valid for Hungarian books, too). Otherwise you will keep playing the same old, by now well worn vynil: those bloodthirsty hortists wanted to tear Transylvania from Rumania's body, and so on...

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf February 08, 2009 08:02 am

I just cited what the book above mentioned said about the situation in 1939. It is posible that the same "fog of war" happened with the romanian historian from XXI century when he worte the book.

Posted by: Dénes February 08, 2009 08:31 am

That's very good. Properly identified sources are always a good basis to start a particular discussion from. However, we should take a further step and comment on the topic, perhaps draw some conclusions, too (without calling others names during the process, of course).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 09, 2009 04:47 pm

QUOTE

peaceful territorial revision through diplomacy

still comprises the war threats, doesn't it?
The hungarian military forces did not forget 1919, so they would never have attacked alone Romania; neither in 1919 were they suppoosed to do that, but the Soviets (or future Soviets, at that time...) were too busy in their own backyard.
And both for Denes and Agarici: the historians in both countries produced mostly partisan works, but the truth can sometimes be seen between the lines - provided one really wants to do that AND is able to (i.e. has the intellectual capability to discern the historical truth from the historical myth)

Posted by: MMM February 09, 2009 04:49 pm

QUOTE

the "latest" in terms of tanks compared to Romania

I just meant that - chronologically - they already had Turans when we had FT's and Skodas... which were slightly inferior.

Posted by: Victor February 09, 2009 07:22 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 09, 2009 06:49 pm)

QUOTE

the "latest" in terms of tanks compared to Romania

I just meant that - chronologically - they already had Turans when we had FT's and Skodas... which were slightly inferior.

To make this clear in case you missed it in the first place. By 1940 the F-17s were used for guard duty. The R-2s and R-35s were the main battled tanks. Furthermore Hungary had less Turan Is than we had R-2s and the Turan I was inferior to the R-2 in terms of firepower. So the Hungarian tanks were outnumbered and outgunned. In terms of tactics and training I would suspect they were at about the same level as the Romanian crews. So where is the superiority in 1940?

Posted by: MMM February 10, 2009 12:54 pm

OK, then, I give up. I just believed that - based on the fact the Hungarians didn't have any "old" stuff such as FT's - they had modernized their army better/faster than Romanians. I was also tricked by the name "Rapid Corps" given to their expeditionary force in the USSR. But I just found out some facts about it, so I have to slightly change my position.

Posted by: Cantemir February 12, 2009 02:02 pm

It is pointless trying to state that 'logic' should be applied to the situation of pre-war Hungary. The atmosphere in the country was febrile. The Germans did not invent the Transylvanian question in just the same way that they did not invent the South Slovak/Ruthenian question that poisoned relations with Czechslovakia and the Slovak successor state or the Voivodina question that bedevilled relations with Yugoslavia, they just exploited it. The spirit in late 1930s was revanchism and a political party - the Arrow Cross - intent on exploiting this atmosphere. Unfortunately, Horthy was too uninformed to see that it was not in Hungary's long-term interest to sell itself to the Nazis. After the spirit of the Treaty of Trianon was rejected the whole Hungarian military machine was developed with the intention of taking back Transylvania (and Southern Slovakia/Ruthenia and Voivodina). The invasion of Southern Slovakia in 1940 was without the knowledge of the Germans. It having happened, the Nazi regime then exploited it to drive Hungary closer to Germany.

The logic that should be applied is that Hungary would have invaded Romania to seize Transylvania and that the Germans intervened to restrict the imposition of all the elements of Hungarian foreign policy because it wanted to keep Romania as a potential ally for its war on the Soviet Union. That is why Romania was able to keep part of Transylvania by the agreement after the Vienna diktat and to prevent a lasting bitterness between the two countries' armies that would have serious repercussions on the operations of the three-way alliance. If Germany had not been so intent on keeping Romania loyal there would have been no diktat, or at least it would not have been applied to Hungarian-Romanian relations. If there had been no other condiserations - the immediate threat of war with Russia, the Nazis desire to crush Poland, the Western allies resistance to German plans in Czechoslovakia (and Slovakia) - it is probable that the Germans could have helped Romania to win the war that started after the Hungarian invasion.

This view is based on the logic that the Germans applied in the case of the civil war that broke in Romania after Marshall Antonescu had been appointed leader. All 'logic' points to the fact that, as in other countries, including Hungary, the Germans would have supported the political party whose views equated most closely to those of the NSDAP and not Antonescu who was not a fascist. In fact, Hitler sided with Antonescu because he needed the Romanian army in his forces. Even if Hitler's view of the general strategic position was more sophisticated that it needed to be, the reason why he intervened in the struggle over Transylvania was because it gave him a lever to use against the Romanian government. The German general staff had identified that Germany needed Romanian oil to keep their war machine running and Hitler preferred to get his oil imports at prices below market level and could force the Romanian government to be more co-operative by appearing to favour the Hungarians. If the Germans had left alone, the Hungarians would have been beaten and Hitler would have lost his bargaining tool. Hungary, of course, lay on the route for oil from Romania and could have caused disruption to deliveries if Hitler had chosen the Romanian side. This was the logic behind Germany's attitude towards Russia's claim to Bessarabia too.

MMM and Dragos are naive if they think that Hungary would have been dissuaded from attacking Romania because it had no allies. It was not deterred from doing so in Southern Slovakia and Ruthenia.

Atravici

I am British and do not wear yellow, blue and red tricoloured-spectacles. Although I do not speak Hungarian, I have read the arguments (in English) of the Hungarian revisionists and they do not stack up. Denes is correct, Hungary was closest to Italy before the Pact of Steel (and Hungary considered the signing of the pact a threat). The Hungarian armed forces were very wary of Germany. The 'alliance' was a marriage of convenience in which the only common thread was resentment at the treaties of Versailles and Trianon. It suited Germany to support Hungarian claims before major war broke out with the Soviet Union. Once the fighting had started, however, Hungarian claims were given short shrift, especially in Yugoslavia. Before you accuse other contributors of lacking knowledge about their countries I suggest you consider whether you know enough about your own!

I do not wish to debate the rights and wrongs of which country should govern Transylvania, I shall only say that the Hungarian minority under Romanian sovereignty has never been subjected to the sort of appalling regime that was applied to those Romanians who were transferred to Hungarian sovereignty, when their region was transferred under the Vienna Agreement.

Denes

I could provide an enormous list of sources in a number of different languages to support my argument but I think my article is long enough.

Posted by: MMM February 12, 2009 03:02 pm

Let's argue, then!
1.

QUOTE

The invasion of Southern Slovakia in 1940

I had no informations about that, but one should NOT compare a remnant of a state or a puppet-state (i.e. Slovakia) to a whole state (Romania before june 1940). After that, a concerted Soviet-Hungarian attack on Romania would have been feasible only for the misinformed; however, I state that in 2009, with a knowledge of the facts (wider than the most of people back then or now), so it is excusable somehow if the Romanian decisin factors believed it could happen like in 1919, except the part that back then the Soviets only planned to attack, but didn't do it.
2.

QUOTE

he needed the Romanian army in his forces

Hitler did NOT need us, but we rather offered cooperation, as it would have been a real stoopid (and I guess deadly for any government) gesture to let the Germans reclaim Bessarabia by force, while the Romanian Army just watched... Only later in the war did Adolf require help from Antonescu.
3.

QUOTE

Vienna diktat and to prevent a lasting bitterness between the two countries' armies that would have serious repercussions on the operations of the three-way alliance

Is that so? The Dictate only managed to disconten the both parties involved, keeping them with a hope of getting the entire Transylvania at a certain point; as for the bitterness in the Army, there wee many quarreling in the Romanian army, including the rejecting of a liaison officer from the Hungarian army OR the fact that Antonescu requested that never in the course of war a Romanian unit should fight alongside a Hungarian one.

4. A long article does NOT improve the valour of truth in its affirmations - and yes, you should quote your sources.
Enough?

Posted by: Cantemir February 13, 2009 12:37 pm

MMM

Cred ca am inteles punctul primul in raspunsul dvs, dar n-am citit niciodata ca guvernul roman a avut o frica ca Rusia sa invadeze Ungria in anul 1940, situatiele n-a fost acela de 1919.

I quote from the book "Hungary at War: Civilians and Soldiers in World War Two", by Cecil D. Eby:

"After the fall of France, Russia gave the Romanians (a nominal but never useful French ally) four days to surrender Bessarabia, and Molotov, in a friendly note, indicated his acceptance of Hungarian claims to Transylvania. Exulting in this opportunity to even the score with the despised Romanians, Hungarian border guards [that had expanded enormously in anticipation of a Hungarian invasion of Transylvania] fired some random shots across the frontier and girded for war. Hitler, who had his eye on the Romanian old fields and wanted no national quarrels in Eastern Europe, intervened. He warned that the Romanian army was much better armed than the Honvedseg. Through pressure, Germany and Russia persuaded Romania to surrender to Hungary a portion of northern Transylvania containing more than two million people, about half of them Magyars. The negotiations, which returned about 40 percent of pre-Trianon Translyvania, was called the Second Vienna Award. The disgruntled Romanian army backed out without firing a shot. German warnings saw to that....Both countries were embittered by the settlement and vowed to settle the dispute by war at a future time, when the German eagle and Russian bear were not monitoring the situation...More menacing, Hungarian politicians legalised the Volksbund [that advocated union with Germany], which could now openly proclaim its National Socialist ideas".

I have never read either that the Germans had territorial claims on Bessarabia. It is likely that they had no objections to the Romanians governing the territory (and, indeed, they probably preferred Romania to the Soviet Union with which they had been forced to sign a treaty by which 90,000 Volksdeutscher were expelled from Bessarabia) and it provided a useful bribe for them to keep Romania sweet.

I do not deny that there were divisions in Romania in 1940. Indeed, it was the existence of divisions that probably emboldened the Hungarians to act in the first place. I do not deny either that the Romanian government never accepted the Second Vienna Settlement and this anger affected their tripartite relationship. However, in 1940, as the book "Maresalul Ion Antonescu, Erou, martir sau criminal de razboi" published by Editura Tesu in 2007, indicates, it was the German view that the southern flank of their advance into Russia neeeded to be covered.

Posted by: MMM February 13, 2009 01:29 pm

RE: cantemir

QUOTE

when the German eagle and Russian bear were not monitoring the situation

Wow! When would that happen? I think it's a ludicrous speculation...
It was a misunderstanding (from your side) about the concerted USSR-Hungary attack. I never said there were plans of such thing, only that Romanians feared the hypothesis. Plus, I never said the USSR would invade Hungary in 1940. It did it in 1944

I'll check out this Eby dude on the Net. However, he seems biased.

Posted by: 21 inf February 13, 2009 02:42 pm

I am glad that fellow forumist Cantemir is british, so his point of view is neutral from both red-yellow-blue and red-white-green colours. I found his words to be pertinent.

Posted by: MMM February 13, 2009 06:15 pm

About Slovakia, what I found on wikipedia:

QUOTE

In mid-March 1939 Hungary received Adolf Hitler's permission to occupy

So, were they ALLOWED to occupy the territory? Look at a map of Slovakia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Czechoslovakia_1939.SVG

Is it a correct map?
21 inf, the foreign nationality of Mr. Cantemir is in a certain measure a proof of objectivity, but as you already know, it is hard for almost everyone to accept oppinions which contradict their own. Some of us included...
Also, cantemir, how could the germans have had any

QUOTE

territorial claims on Bessarabia

when
1. They had no possibility to reach it
2. They already expressed their lack of political interest in the treaty of 23.08.39?

Posted by: Agarici February 21, 2009 07:51 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 10, 2009 12:54 pm)

If I'm right, by 1940 the "Honvedseg" (Hugarian Army) had olny about 80 Toldis (light - and lightly armoured - licence build Swedish tank, armed with 20 mm cannon, apparently a good design but prone to mechanical faliure); no Turans were available until late 1941. So, by 1940 I guess even the FT-17 could had, up to a point, paired the Hungarian tanks. But, as everyone pointed out, it was not the case, since the FT were only used for internal, behind the front (security, anti-paras) duties. Considering their hypotetical clash with the R 35s, in that case the advantage for the Romanian tankers would had been even more clear, in my oppinion. For more on that matter, take a look here:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2036&hl=r+40

The advantage for the Hungarians was having an important number of AFVs suitable for recon and scouting. There were not only the Toldis in this role, but also (and mostly) the "Csaba"s - armoured cars with a very modern design.

Posted by: Agarici February 21, 2009 08:45 pm

QUOTE (Cantemir @ February 12, 2009 02:02 pm)

Atravici

I am British and do not wear yellow, blue and red tricoloured-spectacles. Although I do not speak Hungarian, I have read the arguments (in English) of the Hungarian revisionists and they do not stack up. Denes is correct, Hungary was closest to Italy before the Pact of Steel (and Hungary considered the signing of the pact a threat). The Hungarian armed forces were very wary of Germany. The 'alliance' was a marriage of convenience in which the only common thread was resentment at the treaties of Versailles and Trianon. It suited Germany to support Hungarian claims before major war broke out with the Soviet Union. Once the fighting had started, however, Hungarian claims were given short shrift, especially in Yugoslavia. Before you accuse other contributors of lacking knowledge about their countries I suggest you consider whether you know enough about your own!

Assuming it was me the one you were referring to (by the way, the nick is "AGARICI"), and that you were sober while writing this post, a couple things:

- I was not accusing Denes of not knowing the history of his country; by the way, and four your knowledge, this would be Romania or Canada, and in no case Hungary, from the classical citizenship point of view. I know, the Central-Eastern European realities (and history) are damn' intricate, so perhaps you shouldn't be so eager in teaching lessons about them. What I said was that Denes, whom I saw posting here for quite a few years now, uses his technical knowledge as a hobby aviation historian as an “intellectual prestige”-type argument (“argumentum ad verecundiam”, in Latin - a standard logical error), in combination with the fact that a certain minority (of which member he is) and its rights was/could have been involved in the bellow-mentioned episodes (another typical “argumentum ad misericordiam”) as a starting point to manipulate some general-historical (and highly sensitive) episodes, which could (and should) not be reduced to the sum of raw data about how many planes, and of which type, each side had. I also say that he was/is doing the same thing - weather deliberately or by reflex - in some of his publications (with which I am, more or less, familiar) - and I'm going to illustrate that with examples (and quotations) from his articles, as soon as my time will allow me to. And if the disguised invectives and the typical, textbook reflex of "minority nevrotic self-victimization" are the only answer he could give, that really is his problem.

- Before indirectly asserting that I am an ignorant in history, I advise you to browse this forum a little more. I cam assure you that you could make your point even without randomly accusing other people.

Posted by: Imperialist February 21, 2009 10:04 pm

QUOTE (Cantemir @ February 12, 2009 02:02 pm)

This view is based on the logic that the Germans applied in the case of the civil war that broke in Romania after Marshall Antonescu had been appointed leader. All 'logic' points to the fact that, as in other countries, including Hungary, the Germans would have supported the political party whose views equated most closely to those of the NSDAP and not Antonescu who was not a fascist. In fact, Hitler sided with Antonescu because he needed the Romanian army in his forces.

What civil war?

Posted by: dragos February 21, 2009 10:16 pm

I guess it's the Iron Guard rebellion.

Posted by: MMM February 21, 2009 10:20 pm

I suppose the three-days-rebellion (jan. '41) is the civil war... Or perhaps the whole ensemble of the Legionaire government could have been seen as a series of clashes and slaughters and assassinations could be mischievously seen as civil war (rather than civil unresting - and not even that was the case). Or, the third choice, he was not

QUOTE

sober while writing

as so gracefully Mr. Agarici had put it.
D'ya really care?

Posted by: MMM April 19, 2009 06:09 pm

RE: FT-17's last stand

I guess, according to the pictures I've seen this week at the National Military Museum, that the last time an FT-17 has seen action was in the days after 23.08.1944, in Bucharest! I cannot remember for sure, but according to Ion S. Dumitru's book, there weren't any FT's sent in March 1945 to fight along Red Army, right? He had this theory according to which the Groza Gov't was imposed only after the last Romanian tank troops were deployed from Bucharest (as if the almighty Soviets would have feared a couple of old tanks

).
Is that so?

Posted by: Victor April 19, 2009 06:16 pm

See MODEList no.2, just published.

Posted by: MMM April 24, 2009 04:29 pm

Or the same forum:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=4401&hl=stahel&st=15

As usually, I saw it after the facts...

Posted by: contras February 15, 2011 11:56 am

Not totally OOT, but interesting: Soviet-Nazi military parade at Brest Litovsk, after ocupation of Poland. Photos and a short movie.

http://www.george-damian.ro/pactul-ribbentrop-molotov-si-parada-comuna-sovieto-nazista-din-brest-litovsk-300.html

Posted by: Imperialist February 15, 2011 07:47 pm

QUOTE (contras @ February 15, 2011 11:56 am)

I don't see why GD calls that event "ocultat" since it was known at the time.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 15, 2011 10:51 pm

QUOTE

I don't see why GD calls that event "ocultat" since it was known at the time.

Probably because from june 1941 onwards the soviets tried to hide all traces of their former friendship with the fascists... so, many of these images have been "lost" or ... "hidden", at least from us in Eastern Europe?

Posted by: contras February 16, 2011 08:37 am

QUOTE

many of these images have been "lost" or ... "hidden", at least from us in Eastern Europe?

Of course were "hidden", before 1990 you can't find anything about this. Just oficial propaganda.

Posted by: MMM February 16, 2011 07:50 pm

Actually Gorbachev admitted it in 1989; there even was a "committee" of some sort that declared the pact void. I have to recall its name (the Soviet committee, Imean)...

Posted by: Agarici May 26, 2012 11:44 am

QUOTE (Victor @ August 18, 2005 09:12 am)

QUOTE (Agarici)

What was the organization of the Moto-mechanized brigade (created in October 1939)? Was there a second unit of this type created until September 1940, as initially planned?

QUOTE (Agarici)

- What was the official doctrine of Romanian armoured&mechanized units? Even more specific, where were the young tank officers sent for specialization/studies abroad (if there was the case)?

Since October 1919, all the tank instructors were Romanians. The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).

Back to an earlier discussion, I wonder how come that, before June 1940, the sole Romanian (functional) mechanized brigade was located in Turda, together with the “Western front” units, as opposed to being part of the army group on the eastern frontier - in order to face the Soviet armored and mechanized might, which was more threatening than Hungary’s two rapid/fast brigades?

Posted by: Victor May 26, 2012 06:54 pm

Good question. The unit was created in October 1939 and based in Turda and Alba Iulia, but was fully mobilized only on 28 June 1940. By then it was already too late.

However, not all the tanks were concentrated there. Some were used in support of the troops in Moldavia as well, assigned to the Cavalry Corps, if I am not mistaking. See for example the action at Giurgiulesti of cpt. Napoleon Popescu.

Posted by: Agarici May 27, 2012 02:58 pm

What happened with the second brigade? From what I know, the formation of two motorized/mechanized brigades was planned in 1938, along with other measures to introduce the motor transport at different levels, in the Romanian army. By 1939/1940, if I’m not mistaking, there was enough material available to constitute them - enough transports for several (independent?) motor infantry regiments. As it can be seen from Victor earlier post, there were also enough tanks (R 2s) for the organization of a second mechanized brigade. The fact that it failed to materialize wasn’t a wise thing, since both the previous experiences (on the Polish and French fronts) and the ulterior Romanian actions on the Soviet theatre starting 1941 proved that the specialized armored/mech. units (including tanks, support infantry, motorized artillery) fared better (even if rather small in size) as opposed to using the tanks as support for other separate units.

Posted by: Agarici May 27, 2012 03:35 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ May 26, 2012 06:54 pm)

In the Giurgiulesti bridge episode, as far as I know ( http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/2007-06-25/giurgiulesti-piedica-in-calea-lui-stalin.html ) the Romanians engaged one tank company.

Posted by: Victor June 02, 2012 06:30 pm

QUOTE (Agarici @ May 27, 2012 04:58 pm)

I am not so sure that there was enough equipment for a second brigade. In 1941, the 1st Armored Division went into combat with only one motorized infantry regiment, made up of one battalion from each of the two regiments. There were also many shortages of men with the many different technical skills such a unit required.

Also, very important, there was a shortage of generals who could understand how to employ armored units.

The 4th Army had several tank companies assigned to it. Not all were deployed at Giurgiulesti though.

Posted by: Victor June 04, 2012 10:29 am

See Petre Otu, Imbratisarea anacondei, page 102. Apparently there wasn't enough material to form a 2nd Brigade.

Posted by: Victor June 04, 2012 11:56 am

Let's try to paint a picture of the Romanian deployment, using the data from the above mentioned book and the map of the deployment from 15 November 1939 in Romania in al doilea razboi mondial, Ed. Meridiane, 1995.

The Operative Directive no. 14/17 December 1939 issued by the General Staff instructed the 1st Army Group (3rd and 4th Army) to fight on the Ceremus - Prut River (until Ungheni) - Cornesti Massive - Dnestr River line. This meant abandoning Northern Bessarabia without much fighting.

The 1st Army Group, facing the Soviet Union (my theory):

1. 3rd Army in Bukovina and Northern Moldavia:
- 10th Corps in Cernauti: 7th Infantry Division (left wing), 8th Infantry Division (right wing, in Cernauti), 34th Reserve Infantry Division (west of Radauti)
- 8th Corps (Dorohoi and Botosani area): 6th Infantry Division (Dorohoi, link with 10th Corps), 5th Infantry Division (Botosani)
- 4th Corps (Iasi): 35th Reserve Infantry Division (left wing, link with 8th Corps), 14th Infantry Division (North of Iasi), 15th Infantry Division (across the Prut, North of Ungheni)
- 31st Reserve Infantry Division near Tg Frumos as 3rd Army's reserve
- 2nd Cavalry Division in Northern Bessarabia, to slow down Soviet advance, set up ambushes etc.
In total: 9 infantry divisions + 1 cavalry division (according to P. Otu Imbratisarea anacondei, page 119)

2. 4th Army:
- 3rd Corps (Cronesti Massive, North of Chisinau): 33rd Reserve Infantry Division, 21st Infantry Division
- 11th Corps (Chisinau, Tighina): 26th and 27th Reserve Infantry Division
- Cavalry Corps (Bolgrad): 12th Infantry Division, 32nd Reserve Infantry Division, 3rd Cavalry Division
In total: 8 divisions (according to P. Otu Imbratisarea anacondei, page 102 + 119)

3. 13th Infantry Division in reserve of the army group

4. 1st Mountain Brigade on the mountainous border at the junction with the 1st Army in Transylvania. In March 1940 the brigade was subordinated, together with the 4th Mountain Brigade to the newly formed Mountain Corps. On 17 May, the Mountain Corps command was stationed at Vatra Dornei, in Bukovina, to bolster the defense of the area. It is unclear though if the 4th Mountain Brigade had been taken out of its previous positions in Maramures.

5. 1st Corps: 2nd, 3rd and 11th Infantry Divisions, on the Siret River, in reserve of the 1st Army Group and then of the General Staff

This week, if there's enough time, I will try to make a map with my theory.