Romania - unprepared for war; why?, Why was Romanian army NOT ready?

How comes that Romanian army wasn't prepared for war neither in 1938, nor in 1939 or in 1940? Could Antonescu have done more from september1940 til june 1941?

Do you mean for a war alone against possible Soviet attack in 1938-1940? Are you kidding? Romania was prepared enough for a fight defending the borders against Hungary or Bulgaria but against Germany and USSR ( small countries ofcourse ) how much prepares should do countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland or Romania to win a war ? (PS: don't forget the Ribbentrop -Molotov Pact )

What make you think that Antonescu didn't do enough in that short period sept '40-june 41.?
Quote from the link below

http://www.worldwar2.ro/generali/?article=96

He made a new government, which consisted mainly of officers, he militarized the big factories, the railroad, the airfields and the ports and slowly began to mobilize the army, guessing a future confrontation with the Soviet Union. On 6 June 1941, general Antonescu had a new meeting with Hitler and he was announced about the Barbarossa Plan. The general offered the support of the Romanian army and expressed his wish to retake Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. It was decided to create the General Antonescu Army Group in Moldavia, which was made up of the 3rd and 4th Romanian and 11th German Armies. The group was going to be disbanded once its troops had reached the River Dnestr

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on December 03, 2008 04:20 am

Well, there's a misunderstanding as big as USSR: I never implied Romania should resist alone (like Yugoslavia or Poland did, for that matter, regardless of their harsh defeat). I was just wondering why didn't he (he as in Antonescu, not his so-called cabinet with the Legion) try to do more for the Army as a whole; I understand we didn't have tank manufacturing capability; but we sure had trucks and trains and automobiles and other things! Why didn't we have more motorized units? Infantry at least...
I am not a fan of V. Suvorov, but I guess the Intelligence Services could - and did, for what I know - warn the political leaders about the "peaceful" intentions of the Soviets. However, the wall of fire and steel Carol II boasted was all but invisible. That thing had been seen also in 1944 with the Focşani-Nămoloasa line, which was there but... wasn't! As it is said, once is a happening, but two times is another thing. And YES, I do compare the situations of 1940 and 1944!

The "GAGA" was never really functional and was a mere makeshift designed to appease the suspicions of Romanians fighting under German command (as if...). Plus, the military government was made AFTER the coup in january 1941! Still, Antonescu was in the decision seat from september. In almost ten months, there have been improvements in a couple of Romanian Divisions, but "too little, too late".

Until 1940 nobody was thinking how important will be the tanks in the fields (except for the german Guderian). Remember that in WWI was not. And even countries who allready build tanks in great number , because of their obsolete design were useless in battles.
Regarding automobile manufacturing we had only the Ford assembly factory (trucks and cars were assembled not manufactured)
The trains (steam engines loco.) were build mostly at Resita ( also Vickers AA guns) and Malaxa (where also was build under licence Malaxa chenillette).

" Too little, too late" for what to conquer the USSR ?
Romania had enough forces to get back the lost teritories Basarabia and Bucovina. Target acomplished by Antonescu. For that reason was made marschal. To conquer the USSR was Germany target. Antonescu wanted to help Hitler for acomplish this target, but in return Hitler offered "too little, too late" support . For example at Stalingrad, germans give only 22 P-III, P-IV modern tanks to romanians to fight against more than 300 T-34 russian tanks.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on December 03, 2008 03:32 pm

The question is much more complex than it seems, so there is no easy answer.

First, to build a well equipped military force for the kind of conflict that was WWII, Romania needed a more powerful industrialized economy and a more educated manforce. None of these is obtained over the course of several months or even several years.

Second, very important, being ready in 1938, does not neccessary mean being ready in 1941 or worse 1944. Italy is a very good example in this matter. In WWII would have been fought in 1937-38, its armed forces would have been some of the best equipped in the world. However, by 1940-41 most of the military vehicles and aircraft were obsolete and the Italian Army suffered one disaster after another.

What could have been done and Antonescu didn't do was to comit less troops on the Eastern front during 1942 and provide more equipment and munitions to a smaller number of troops. At worse there would have been less men lost at the Don's Bend.

<However, by 1940-41 most of the military vehicles and aircraft were obsolete and the Italian Army suffered one disaster after another>
Then what was wrong with the Italian fleet? The Italian battleships were newer faster and better armed than the British Mediterrean fleet. Better equipment did not them good there. Do you really believe the Romanians would have defeated the Russians with better equipment only? The Germans couldnt why could the Romanians?

The situation was not as catastrophic at is seems around 1940 and Romania was prepared enough to fight alone against Hungary or Bulgaria or both of them. Of course, no amount of military preparations was enough to face alone the Soviet Union, without foreign intervention, and this was a diplomatic goal.

The artillery was particularly good among the military powers in 1940, with almost the entire heavy artillery being motorized, and with the standardization of smaller calibers in progress. Also the infantry body was large and well equipped in regards of small arms, but it was lacking mobility and more heavy firepower, being organized on WW1 doctrines. A reduction of units personnel for increased flexibility and firepower was what Antonescu had in mind.

As Cantacuzino said, it was prepared enough to take back the lost territories in 1941, but not for a prolonged campaign deep into Soviet Union, but before the war this was never the aim anyway.

Perhaps no other country in the world could have taken the punishment the Soviets took, as being under attack by military forces of eight nations they were near the verge of collapse yet they recovered. For this unique accomplishment, the essential conditions were: industrial capacity, manpower and totalitarian regime, while the technology or sophistication of equipment, training or education was of less importance.

and space to withdraw and allied assistance.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on December 05, 2008 06:35 am

And bad wheather ( when technology and sophistication were useless)

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on December 05, 2008 07:41 am

The Italian Fleet (the Supermarina as they called it) did not have two very important modern pieces of modern equipment: radar and aircraft carriers.

Getting back to our subject, no one claimed that Romania could have defeated the SU with better equipment, so stop trolling.

Radar and aircraft carriers?
1- u dont need aircraft carriers when fighting only within the Mediterrenean! The Italian fleet was never too far from Italy and so could always call on Air support. Sometimes that air support was German. Look to the horrendous losses of teh British when evacuating Crete. So that is not valid.
2- As far as radar it might not have had radar in 1939 but I believe they had it by 1943. The Italians never fought forget about the equipment. Same for the Romanians! A common theme is if only they had better equipment they would have fought. That was false. Even when they had better equipment they did not fight.
No Yamato death runs for the Italian fleet.

<manpower and totalitarian regime>
The cazr had manpoer but lost. So I think the answer was the totalitarian regime! All possible dissedents were killed by Stalin in the great purges! So when the shit hit the fan in 1941-2 there was no one fometing dissent and criticizing comrade Stalin's leadership. If there was, maybe a hypothetical comrade Zonoviev or Bucharin could have started a revolution in 1942 and made a separate peace with Hitler! Isnt that what Lenin did in 1918?

Lol! Where have we arrived?
1. China suffered almost as much as SU and didn't win the war - not until 1949
2. Any of you have read and believed at least parts of V. Suvorov (alias Oleg Rezun)'s writings?
3. I said it and I will repeat it: no person in its right mind would presume that Romania intended (or that I affirmed that) to conquer the SU. And linked to that: Romania did not re-capture alone Bessarabia; this is clear, as the Romanian forces did not cross the Prut river until July. Why is that? Because of the German advance in the center of the front, on whose southern wing were we (aka the Romanian forces PLUS XI-th German Army, commanded initially by general von Schobert)
4. The Italian lacked many things: motivation, competent leaders (not to say anything about genius generals like Rommel, Guderian, Manstein or even Jukov), equipment being the last on the list
5.

Really, now? How about Fuller, Liddell Hart and some others, then? Should we forget that armored vehicles were a BRITISH invention, known as tanks only for disguise? Guderian was the first to put it in practice on the field, although the above-mentioned Suvorov claims that the first "blitz" was in the summer of 1939, at Halhin-Gol, with Jukov as the attacker.
6. feic, what is cazr?
7. Admin, how's the thing w/ the ranks? I mean, what's necessary for a promotion? More than a couple of posts, of course