Gen. Dénes
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Western Front (1944-1945) > Romanian Vehicles in Budapest |
| Posted by: kp1201 April 03, 2017 01:44 pm |
| Hello, I am trying to track down information on Romanian vehicles used in the Siege of Budapest. I know by this time the Soviets had confiscated nearly all of their German armor but did the Romanians have any Armor in use during the siege? Also as a side topic, were there any unique units involved in the Siege? Besides your normal infantry line units? Thank you for any help you can provide. |
| Posted by: Dénes April 10, 2017 07:32 pm |
| Here is a vehicle of the Rumanian army, photographed in Hungary. Excerpt from my book, 'Magyar Warriors', vol. 2. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Agarici April 10, 2017 09:31 pm | ||
"To humiliate their neighbor", "their masters"?!? What language is that, that of the tabloid press or that of a Hollywood (cheap) movie? Or it is pure propaganda? For it surely is not the phrasing of a modern, neutral and objective (including by that "not sensational") history book. Even one written by an amateur, hobby-driven historian. Here we go again, like with the "insult" for Hungarians represented by Germany selling the He 112 to Romania (and Transylvania "given" to Romania in 1919, and other similar formulas), in your early book. I was hoping that this kind of "furia francese" of the beginner would calm down later. You CAN do better than that, dear Denes! |
| Posted by: Dénes April 12, 2017 11:21 am |
| I knew it would blew your fuse, Agarici, but I cannot help it. We are doing this for more than ten years now. Such sort of language is needed in such works if you want to catch the attention of the reader. Tons of information, figures and dry descriptions simply do not work. I am pretty sure that deep in your heart you know what I wrote is true, only it does not 'sound good', when printed. Am I right? And yes, I am "an amateur, hobby-driven historian". I don't take this as an insult, but a fact. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Agarici April 13, 2017 09:02 am | ||
I hope you realize that I didn't mean it like an insult. I appreciate your books/articles, and they bring forth an important contribution to the military history and to the historical knowledge proper. I might even agree with your second paragraph too, but you know that even so some of your statements/expressions/choice of words ("Rumania", for example) would remain controversial. The debate is a larger one, involving more that the "eye catching" part (with which I might again agree) and including ontological/philosophical aspects. Never mind, the first beer is on me, when you come to Cluj (now that it is officially called Kolozsvár also) for such a discussion. The only REAL problem with attracting the less specialized (historic) audience with such formulas, IF we do not limit ourselves to the positive clichés (Hungarians as being impetuous, Germans as precise, Romanians as hospitable) would be to decide where should we draw the line (if needed). Because without such a line drawn, we would go straight back to the ideological Nazi, Horthyst and Antonescian, with which, if I din't get it wrong, you yourself disagree. |
| Posted by: Agarici April 13, 2017 10:47 pm | ||
More to the point, directly involved in the battle was the Romanian 7th Army Corps (commander being gen. Nicolae Șova, http://worldwar2.ro/generali/?article=92), composed of the 2nd and the 19 Infantry Divisions and the 9th cavalry Division (and probably also a motor regiment of heavy artillery). But, from what I red, the Romanian division also had the support of (subordinated) Soviet armor units. This was rather an exception, because of the odd way in which, despite protestations from the Romanian HQ, the "allied army groups" (Soviet-Romanian) were constituted, with a Romanian army subordinated to its Soviet counterpart/pair and its commanding general. |
| Posted by: Dénes April 14, 2017 01:08 pm | ||
Rest assured, Agarici, if I ever end up in Cluj for more than a couple of hours, I will have a beer with you. The chances of this to happen is however slim, as I am usually rushing through the highway South of the city heading towards Tg. Mures. As for epithets Nazi, Horthyst and Antonescian (Hohenzollerian?), I refrain using them, as they belong to politics, and cheap tabloids. Also, I am not using 'liberation', or 'occupation' for ethnically mixed territories. Here is one such example how I treat this delicate subject (I hope you would not mind my direct approach).  Finally, during the past 10+ years I had - often heated - discussions here with you. I realised that certain topics must be spelled out clearly, not hiding behind all kind of metaphores, or indirect explanation, which would be lost to most readers not initiated in the intricacy of the particular delicate topic. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Agarici April 18, 2017 06:21 am |
| More to the point, regarding kp1201 initial question (if he's still with us): Romanian forces were mainly infantry (according to Max Axwothy's "The Romanian Army of World War 2", by the second half of 1944 the 9th Cavalry Division was actually an infantry formation, the soldiers having substituted their cavalry boots with infantry boots and puttees). They were using various vehicles, even though, according to various sources, many of them were being confiscated by the Soviets, with no viable source for replacement (other than the captures). Staff cars: Tatra T 93 - infantry divisions, regiments(?), army corps (there are photos with the car, returning from the front-line to Ro, in mod-1945), Horch staff car (cavalry), Kubelvagens at lover level (and also for liaison, recon). Recon: Tatra T 93 truck version (for infantry recon companies), perhaps Horch troop transporters for the cavalry divisions light infantry recon battalions - unlikely to be used for recon duties in an urban combat environment, motorcycles (solo and with sidecar, BMW 75 and Zundapp). Troop transport and artillery tractors (for the heavy artillery regiment, subordinated to the army corps - the divisional artillery of these divisions being horse-drawn): Praha and Skoda trucks (like that from the photo posted by Denes), Mercedes (from 1942), Opel Blitz (from later in the war) and captured Soviet Gaz AAA trucks. Some Zugkraftwagen, ROS/01, T6 and Lanz Bulldog D8500 were used too. For the engineer/pontoon troops, Austro-Daimler ADGR's 6x6 trucks were imported, but I don't know if they were still in use. Partly the above-mentioned models were also used for towing the Ro AT guns - 47, 45 (?), 50, 75 mm) (seen in a lot of photos during the siege of Budapest), together with lighter tractors (probably Romanian assembled/American/German Fords among them) and horses. Were any independent AA unit subordinated to 7th Army Corps, they would have used Skodas and Henschels for the "heavy" (75, 88 mm) guns and Fords for the lighter ones. Also, Ford ambulances (vans) were used. |
| Posted by: Agarici April 18, 2017 06:23 am |
| During the war, the Romanian trucks and vehicles (unarmored) were painted khaki, usually without crosses/roundels (after 23 August 1944 ). |