StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As some of you may or may not know, me and my wife have travelled to Warsaw recently in order to take care of some important business. Well, turns out we managed to do it way faster than anticipated, and so we had some time to kill. I always wanted to visit the Polish Army Museum, and as it turned out, admission was free on Wednesdays. Really, the opportunity was too good to pass up

I figured the photographs I made may be somewhat interesting to the folks here, especially since the museum has a lot of stuff which may be difficult to find elsewhere, and especially in the US.

Let's start from the beginning, or at least very early.


Full plate armor, in heavy use somewhere around the XVth century. Note to lack of gaps: the plates interlock with each other, creating a continous surface.


Ornamental tournament armor headpiece. I'm not sure if the owner wanted to look scary, or goof off.


Various other suits of armor - we can see the enormous variety resulting from the fact that every suit was custom made - ignore my ugly mug

The XIVth-XVth centuries were an age where Polish nationality was established, and the weaponry and armor used was very similar to typical Western designs. We'll see soon enough how those changed with the advent of practical gunpowder weapons, and wars against Eastern enemies.


Organ guns: two different designs


Hussar armor, early XVIIth century I think. Hussars were a formation of famous heavy cavalry from the gunpowder age: you can clearly see the armor does away with heavy, enclosed suits, and concentrates on protecting the vital areas.


A typical hussar on horseback. There is still controversy whether the wings served a practical purpose or were a purely ceremonial piece of attire. Most painting and the like portray hussars going to battle witht he wings on, but few documents actually concern them.


Hussar armor suits. As you can see, they vary enormously (save for the basic style) - the formation was still very much composed of nobles who purchased their own equipment.


Raittar (auxilliary infantry) armor suit. As you can clearly see, armor was not yet obsolete in the early XVIIth century, and was quite capable of stopping gunfire - twice!


Plug bayonets of various designs

Moving on: by the end of the XVIIIth century, Poland was no longer a continental superpower, and fell into disarray. Foreign powers began carving up the country, with no small help from the anarchistic nobility: this led to a period of occupation, national uprisings and creation of the "wanderer soldier" mythos.

I'll be frank and say I didn't make many pictures of the XVIIIth and XIXth century stuff: they seemed pretty generic to me, but then again, I'm a pagan who's not really all that interested in these periods.

And the exhibits were rather scarce, too

World War I: the period where Polish units fought on both sides of the frontline, realizing different concepts of gaining independence. Two most well-known units were the Polish Legion fighting for the Central Powers, and general Haller's Army in France. They came to post-war independent Poland after the war and formed the basis of the freshly created armed forces of the nation, using mostly scavenged equipment (of which a huge crapload was left on various warehouses throughought the country, including fully assembled airplanes, rifles, machine guns and artillery)


Austrian rifle grenade


A Legionairre cavalryman uniform


Cavalry carbines of various manufacturers


Vickers gun, with its wheeled carriage

More pictures once I process them. The meat of the matter is still ahead: we'll see some rarely shown equipment from the interwar period, such as the Polish designed self-loading rifle (wz. 1938), the Ur anti-armor rifle, a TS reconeissance tankette, cavalryman's gear and a pistol which the Germans couldn't help but copy.

Also, there's an open-air display of fighter jets, tanks and other armored vehicles from the postwar period.

Nice pictures.

IIRC the Polish Hussars were a unit type of their own because they were too light for heavy cavalry but too well armored for being light cav. It stems from their role as a fast reaction force having to face both heavy knights of the german military orders and mongol/tatar light cavalry.

folti78 wrote:Nice pictures.

IIRC the Polish Hussars were a unit type of their own because they were too light for heavy cavalry but too well armored for being light cav. It stems from their role as a fast reaction force having to face both heavy knights of the german military orders and mongol/tatar light cavalry.

Unlikely, as the first polish heavy hussars were formed in 1503.

Thanas wrote:

folti78 wrote:Nice pictures.

IIRC the Polish Hussars were a unit type of their own because they were too light for heavy cavalry but too well armored for being light cav. It stems from their role as a fast reaction force having to face both heavy knights of the german military orders and mongol/tatar light cavalry.

Unlikely, as the first polish heavy hussars were formed in 1503.

Conceeded, this will teach me not to post again from memory.

The leopard skin looks great on the hussar armor, but I have to wonder how the hell did a Polish nobleman get his hands on the skin of an animal native to Africa and Asia, one not native to Europe? From Turkish merchants?

As for the wings, IIRC, decorations like that are meant to help soldiers ID their leader, i.e., let them know who they're supposed to follow when the order "Charge!" is given.

Good stuff, PeZook. Can't wait for the rest.

I don't put much stock into this, but I thought the wings were supposed to make some sort of noise when the hussars got up to speed. It seems plausible, but then it seems just as plausible that it's a load of crap. Most of my knowledge of that period comes form Wikipedia and Sienkiewicz's trilogy anyway, so it's spotty at best.

Karrick wrote:Good stuff, PeZook. Can't wait for the rest.

Thanks! I should have the next batch processed and uploaded tomorrow

Karrick wrote:I don't put much stock into this, but I thought the wings were supposed to make some sort of noise when the hussars got up to speed. It seems plausible, but then it seems just as plausible that it's a load of crap. Most of my knowledge of that period comes form Wikipedia and Sienkiewicz's trilogy anyway, so it's spotty at best.

That's one theory, yeah. AFAIK, the current explanations on the table are:

1) The wings were supposed to make noise for some practical reason: either to scare horses (unlikely: a horse trained for battle probably won't be scared by flapping feathers), or perhaps confuse the enemy somehow.

2) The wings were ceremonial attire, and weren't worn into battle at all.

Thing is, this one part of the hussar's getup isn't discussed at length by any period source. Painters always portrayed hussars charging the enemy with their wings on, but painters are hardly a hard, reliable source on the matter.

It's one of those mysteries that will probably never be solved, barring some radical new discovery, but it makes for cool speculation, and looks pretty cool, too.

Sidewinder wrote:The leopard skin looks great on the hussar armor, but I have to wonder how the hell did a Polish nobleman get his hands on the skin of an animal native to Africa and Asia, one not native to Europe? From Turkish merchants?

Frankly, I have no idea. It didn't occur to me to ask the staff about those leopard skins.

Sidewinder wrote: As for the wings, IIRC, decorations like that are meant to help soldiers ID their leader, i.e., let them know who they're supposed to follow when the order "Charge!" is given.

Yeah, except of course the damn paintings show wings as standard kit for every soldier.

Perhaps I'm simply unaware of some new, well documented theory on the use of those wings, though. I don't follow the sources as well as I should, so maybe Thanas will surprise me somehow

^I think I'll be able to show a convincing argument for what the wings were for tomorrow, right now I need to sleep.

PeZook wrote:AFAIK, the current explanations on the table are:

1) The wings were supposed to make noise for some practical reason: either to scare horses (unlikely: a horse trained for battle probably won't be scared by flapping feathers), or perhaps confuse the enemy somehow.

I doubt the wings would make a distinguished noise, i.e., one that could be identified over sounds such as roaring cannons, shattering stone, human screams and animal bellows, wind and other weather effects, or the drums and horns a real medieval army would use for signalling.

2) The wings were ceremonial attire, and weren't worn into battle at all.

This is certainly possible.

Sidewinder wrote:As for the wings, IIRC, decorations like that are meant to help soldiers ID their leader, i.e., let them know who they're supposed to follow when the order "Charge!" is given.

Yeah, except of course the damn paintings show wings as standard kit for every soldier.

That's probably an exaggeration. Mass media often shows everyone as a knight in plate armor, riding chargers during medieval battles, even though this was cost prohibitive- the poor bloody infantry are often ignored, despite their significant roles and their numbers. As for how I guessed the wings' purpose, I drew a connection between them and the flags samurai and Chinese generals wore on their backs to identify themselves, as seen here and here.

So that's what King Paul looks like.

Awesome pictures, I'm looking forward to seeing more. Especially the World Wars stuff.

Sidewinder wrote:I doubt the wings would make a distinguished noise, i.e., one that could be identified over sounds such as roaring cannons, shattering stone, human screams and animal bellows, wind and other weather effects, or the drums and horns a real medieval army would use for signalling.

As for how I guessed the wings' purpose, I drew a connection between them and the flags samurai and Chinese generals wore on their backs to identify themselves, as seen here and here.

Lord help me, some days I swear people are trying to give me an aneurysm by their rape of the historic method.

Seriously, this is a joke, right?

Was it a more mythical reason? Something to do with dragons? Or Eagles? I noticed eagles are pretty common motif in that region.

Nice pics by the way, PeZook.

I also noticed the armor style is very reminiscent of those I saw in Sweden and Norway.

Very nice pictures, PeZook. And yes, we finally get to see King Paul.

Are there any more silly and unexplained stuff like the wings? The armor with the leopard's skin was also very nice. Though where would a medieval Polish soldier get such furs?

Thanas wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:I doubt the wings would make a distinguished noise, i.e., one that could be identified over sounds such as roaring cannons, shattering stone, human screams and animal bellows, wind and other weather effects, or the drums and horns a real medieval army would use for signalling.

It's not as ridiculous as you think.

Ancient & Medieval Terminology wrote:naccara: large Mongol drum used to direct troop movements. Drums commonly used in battle in Muslim world, but Mongols took their use to a higher level, controlling their squadrons of pony-mounted and camel-mounted cavalry to such a degree that no army could oppose them.

The True Story of William Wallace wrote:Meanwhile Wallace was acting on his own. In 1297 he readied his followers for a decisive clash against the English. He positioned his men in the hills around a bridge that crossed the river Forth north of Sterling. The English confidant in their numbers began to cross the narrow bridge. William let about half the English army get across when he winded a great blast of his horn, which was the signal to attack.

Instruments of Expression: Bells, Drums, and a Horn wrote:Someone who marches to the beat of a different drummer has different views, interests, or values than his or her contemporaries. A variant of this expression was made well known by Henry David Thoreau in Walden (1850): "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." The expression is much older, however, and owes its existence to the practice of European armies using a drummer to keep time as they marched and to signal various orders (see beat a retreat, below). Anyone marching to a different drummer was in some other army and, therefore, likely had different views.

History of the Bugle wrote:The first authentic instance of a command being given by trumpet call was at the Battle of Bouvines, where Philip Augustus of France defeated Otto IV of Germany in 1214, when the trumpets sounded the signal for the victorious French charge. According to Markman in his Soldires Accidence, the different signals or calls were as follows with their modern equivalents:

"Butte Sella" - Boots and Saddles
"Mounte Cavallo" - To Horse
"A la Standard" - To The Standard or Color
"Tuquet" - Forward
"Carga, Carga" - Charge
"Aquet" - Watch (Sounded at night as the Tattoo and in the morning as Reveille)

The earliest notated calls can be found in Janeqequin's composition depicting the French victory at Marignana in 1515. The piece, La Bataille, contains trumpet and drum calls. By 1544, descriptions of the specific trumpet signals used to issue commands were prepared by the British army as it waged its French campaign. These trumpet signals were used for cavalry while drums were used for the infantry.
<snip>
Cesare Bendinelli of Verona, Italy was a musician and the leader of a trumpet ensemble for the Duke of Bavaria. In 1614, Bendinelli published The Entire Art of Trumpet Playing. Included in the method are military trumpet calls. The military signals - field pieces, as the German trumpeters called them - were the chief repertoire of the field, or military, trumpeters.

Thanas wrote:

As for how I guessed the wings' purpose, I drew a connection between them and the flags samurai and Chinese generals wore on their backs to identify themselves, as seen here and here.

Lord help me, some days I swear people are trying to give me an aneurysm by their rape of the historic method.

Seriously, this is a joke, right?

Sorry about the poor phrasing. I did not mean to suggest Chinese/Japanese generals traveled to Poland and told Polish officers to wear something to make them identifiable to their men (I know travel between Europe and the Far East is a Herculean task in those days). I meant to say the wings and the flags are an example of convergent evolution- that Polish officers, when confronted with problems similar to those Chinese/Japanese officers faced, independently adopted solutions similar to those of Chinese/Japanese officers.

Would make sense. Feathered wings could be a rank-specific ornament?

I don't think Thanas meant what you think he did when he commented about your fast and loose approach to the historical method, Sidewinder

Fucking awesome pics, and really nice/interesting suits of armour in the first shots. (And the cool volley gun).

Sidewinder wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:I doubt the wings would make a distinguished noise, i.e., one that could be identified over sounds such as roaring cannons, shattering stone, human screams and animal bellows, wind and other weather effects, or the drums and horns a real medieval army would use for signalling.

It's not as ridiculous as you think.

See the part I bolded? That is where i disagreed - the polish army of the sixteenth century is no medieval army.

Sorry about the poor phrasing. I did not mean to suggest Chinese/Japanese generals traveled to Poland and told Polish officers to wear something to make them identifiable to their men (I know travel between Europe and the Far East is a Herculean task in those days). I meant to say the wings and the flags are an example of convergent evolution- that Polish officers, when confronted with problems similar to those Chinese/Japanese officers faced, independently adopted solutions similar to those of Chinese/Japanese officers.

Yes, I got that on the first try and it is still pretty much raping the historical method. Do you know how a real historian would go and look for explanations?

Certainly not by immdiately drawing paralells to other cultures and other times. Especially not when the customs of warfars in those cultures are unlike the european ones at that time.

Here's the next batch: a little late, but better now than never, eh?

After the WWI and midwar stuff, we moved on to WWII. First, there's a large room full of exhibits on the prewar military gear of the regular Polish Army. Some of the most interesting pieces are below:


TKS reconeissance tankette (indigenous Polish design) - it was essentially a small two-man ATV (driver and commander/gunner) armed with a single machine gun, usually attached to other troops formations like cavalry. Quite an effective little bugger when pitted against infantry, but they were usually in poor mechanical shape in 1939, so they didn't see a lot of action.


Close-up of a periscope with a 360 degree rotating mount


A wz. 38M self-loading rifle. Another interesting invention, built by a Polish engineer Józef Maroszek. It was actually designed around 1935, and was selected out of 10 similar designs for simplicity and cheapness in production. It had a 10-round box magazine and weighs about 4,5 kilograms. Unfortunately, only around 150 units were produced before the war. Supposedly, Maroszek himself shot down a German airplane using one piece he owned illegally.


The Ur bolt-action anti armor rifle. "Ur" stood for "Uruguay" - that's the cover story, the rifles were supposedly produced for export. TO&Es called for every platoon to have one, and since it could penetrate 33mm of armor from 100 meters, which means it could immobilize any German tank. Over 3500 pieces were distributed to combat units, and they saw great use throughout the September campaign. The rifle is notable for use of small-diameter extremely fast ammunition, which meant it could use smaller rounds than similiar weapons, and thus operated much like a standard bolt-action rifle, with a five-round internal magazine.


A French-designed wz.1897 field cannon. To those who think the French can't design weapons, this gun made all the other similar weapons obsolete when it was designed in 1897. This was the primary field gun of the Polish army, still quite capable in 1939 - to the point that Germans used captured guns of this type (French and Polish) throughout the war.


An Ulan's gear. Notice a lack of lance, and a sabre covered by saddle bags: see my sig for where the myth of Polish cavalrymen charging German tanks was engineered. In reality, Polish cavalry brigades were an elite part of the Army, well equipped with anti-tank guns, machine guns, tankettes and artillery.

Of course, Nazi propaganda neglected to mention the battles where they actually lost tanks to Polish cavalry. Would be bad for PR


An anti-aircraft gun, 32mm I think. Hundreds of those and similar guns were employed in Poland during the September Campaign. Myself for size comparison.

Sadly, I forgot to take a picture of the famous Bofors 37m antitank gun, but here's something:

Cookie for anybody who guesses what that is.

We move on: obviously, Poland was unable to repel the German invasion, thus entering a period of occupation. There were two main facets of this part of Polish history: the resistance movement, and the wanderer-soldiers fighting the Nazis on most fronts.

I will skip over most of the boring uniforms and weapons of foreign Polish units: it was standard kit. However, here's a choice photo concerning them:


Puppets from a regimental theatre, I think they came from the 2nd Polish Corps in Italy


Replica of a Warsaw wall during occupation. You can see caricatures of Hitler and various slogans there - this wasn't spontaneous, it was actually an organized effort called 'small sabotage'. Special formations of the Armia Krajowa dealt with propaganda, and usually employed young cadets who gained precious experience in conspiratory work without endangering actual combat operations if caught. The history of 'small sabotage' is too long to sum up here, but it's full of awesome episodes: for example, soldiers from these units managed to hijack parts of the German PA system in Warsaw TWICE and broadcast Polish auditions through them.


A Goliath mine: the first combat drone ever used in war. Controlled by an operator via a ground cable, it was a suicide device which, in theory, was supposed to crawl up to enemy fortifications and blow them up. Proved to be almost totally ineffective, but well...this one was used during the Warsaw Uprising, by the Germans, obviously.


A German regimental standard captured on the Western front by Gen. Maczek's 1st Armored Division. You can see unit numbers on it: I wonder if anyone can identify the actual unit?



From the same room (an exhibit in the making, hence the obvious printout near that regimental standard), two examples of a Polish Vis pistol. The gun was, essentially, a copy of the basic Browning mechanism - but it was well-made and of good quality, to the point that Germans made 385 thousand of them after capturing the factory. Tells you a lot about how sucky German sidearms must've been, eh?

Next part will have all the heavy equipment displayed in outside exhibits, such as an actual Mig-29, an actual armored car built and used by partisans in occupied Warsaw and lots of armored gear from postwar times.

That telescope/bazooka type thingy is some kind of range finder, ain't it? Used for spotting distant ground objects/people and aircraft.

No it's not. I would've said that it's an AT4, but it isn't.

Lovely pictures, PeZook. I particularly like that tank-killing bolt-action rifle.

And now, for my explanation of the winged Hussars.

The work I mostly consulted was the aptly named "Polish Winged Hussar 1576-1775" by Richard Brzezinski, Velimir Vukšić, Osprey Publishing 2006. I normally avoid Osprey books like the plague, but this one should do for a good first look as I do not speak Polish. And lo and behold, it did have a bit about the wings in it.

There can be a lineage traced back to the Balkan deli horsemen, elite men who wore wings. The Poles copied those delis in units called elears. Those too wore wings. The function of the delis was to disrupt enemy formations in battle and to act as skirmishers.
Ottoman miniatures show the delis with wings on their backs. The hussars, the successors and the superiors of the delis, apparently copied the practice.

In 1635, the french diplomat Charles Ogier wrote: "[...]it is difficult not to laugh at the sight of the long wings attached at their backs, which, they claim, scare the enemy horses and throw the enemy into retreat".

These wings were no doubt used on campaign as well, as a monk named Brulig mentions them marching past his monastery in Morovia. Likewise, in 1646, the words "feathered units" apparently were used as synonyms for wings. The French poet Regnard also writes about scaring horses by the wings.

As the book argues, horses are wary of unaccustomed sights.

************

This was the Osprey book. I also find it likely that the wings confused enemy shooters as well and frightened infantrymen, as it is makes the hussar look taller and wider. I then tried to corrobate what the Osprey book said with other primary sources. And I found a quote by Bernard Connor, the Irishman serving as physician to the King of Poland, Jan III Sobieski.

"[...]stuck all over with wings of Storks, Cranes, Turkey-cocks and cloatted over their Armor with the skins of Leopards, Tygers, Bears, Lions, etc., all of which they do to make themselves more terrible to the enemy."

Therefore, it seems the wings were one of many decorative elements used to frighten the enemy and especially the enemy horses. Indeed, considering the effect of even a small number of horses breaking away from a cavalry charge, thereby throwing it in chaos, the wings might have been a good addition to those times.

Of course, when cavalry became more and more disciplined and advances in horse training were made, the wings would have been of little use anymore. It would also explain why no nation other than the Polish and the Hungarians used wings, as the french/spanish/austrians already had very well-disciplined cavalry and the various states of the HRE could not afford to field much cavalry, and especially not cavalry so extravagantly decorated and heavily armoured.

However, against the more ill-disciplined cavalry of the east and the balkans, they might have had greater success.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:No it's not. I would've said that it's an AT4, but it isn't.

Yes it is! Orange got it in one, and gets one (1) Internet cookie.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Lovely pictures, PeZook. I particularly like that tank-killing bolt-action rifle.

It's very phallic, isn't it?

Thanas wrote: This was the Osprey book. I also find it likely that the wings confused enemy shooters as well and frightened infantrymen, as it is makes the hussar look taller and wider. I then tried to corrobate what the Osprey book said with other primary sources. And I found a quote by Bernard Connor, the Irishman serving as physician to the King of Poland, Jan III Sobieski.

"[...]stuck all over with wings of Storks, Cranes, Turkey-cocks and cloatted over their Armor with the skins of Leopards, Tygers, Bears, Lions, etc., all of which they do to make themselves more terrible to the enemy."

Therefore, it seems the wings were one of many decorative elements used to frighten the enemy and especially the enemy horses. Indeed, considering the effect of even a small number of horses breaking away from a cavalry charge, thereby throwing it in chaos, the wings might have been a good addition to those times.

A museum employee told me they were supposed to make the hussar unit look bigger than it really was, but since the woman was just a guide I didn't put much stock in that claim, but it seems there is a nugget of truth to that

Apparently, there are more primary sources on the matter than I was aware of. Thanks for that post, Thanas, it will certainly be useful.

What are wrong with the Osprey books, Thanas? They largely seem to be preliminary texts on military subjects and I mostly get them for the illustrations anyway.

Big Orange wrote:What are wrong with the Osprey books, Thanas? They largely seem to be preliminary texts on military subjects and I mostly get them for the illustrations anyway.

Osprey books are superficial and often ignore controversies in favor of their pet theories, which more often than not turn out to be wrong. Not to mention they are often quite bad when it comes to primary sources.

The same problem is with the illustrations, especially with ancient history they tend to over-dramatize things and lump a lot of stuff together when there is little evidence for it. Kinda like "Oh, we have got chainmail from Dalmatia and look, on this columm in rome we have this shield, so let's combine the two".

Not to mention their debacle with the living eagle of the legio III parthica.