Cavalry in Twilight 2000

[Legbreaker]

And on the subject of putting a stop to ravaged farms and such, that depends. In the US, France, England, and other such places that hasn't seen armies up close and personal, guarded by troops that haven't fought, sure they are going to get rolled. But, in central Europe, where the civilians have seen fighting up close and personal, with the troops guarding the farms having been shot up, bombed, shelled, and nuked enough to get used to it, being told that protecting these farms means they won't starve My money is on the troops.

I think you may be missing my point. The bulk of all combat units will be on the front lines, positioned to defend against the enemy. They are unavailable for civil defence roles, including crowd control and resource protection.

Only rear area units such as MPs, logisitics, medical, etc are going to be in any position to resist the hordes. Also, depending on current action taking place at the front, many of these supporting units may be otherwise occupied (medics for example dealing with the injuried, logisitics resupplying the troops with ammo, etc) Out of all these units, only the MPs (to my knowledge) have any training for this type of mission, therefore it's quite likely there would be many deaths from untrained soldiers overreacting, or simply not understanding how to secure an area without leaving gaping holes in the perimeter.

Yes, there will likely be more deaths on the civilian side, but you can bet the military aren't going to get off lightly either, especially once the civilians arm themselves, or are led by somebody with some degree of tactical knowledge.

[Panther Al]

I think you may be missing my point. The bulk of all combat units will be on the front lines, positioned to defend against the enemy. They are unavailable for civil defence roles, including crowd control and resource protection.

Only rear area units such as MPs, logisitics, medical, etc are going to be in any position to resist the hordes. Also, depending on current action taking place at the front, many of these supporting units may be otherwise occupied (medics for example dealing with the injuried, logisitics resupplying the troops with ammo, etc) Out of all these units, only the MPs (to my knowledge) have any training for this type of mission, therefore it's quite likely there would be many deaths from untrained soldiers overreacting, or simply not understanding how to secure an area without leaving gaping holes in the perimeter.

Yes, there will likely be more deaths on the civilian side, but you can bet the military aren't going to get off lightly either, especially once the civilians arm themselves, or are led by somebody with some degree of tactical knowledge.

Good point, that would be a reason for the scarcity of rear area units in the various books.

[Raellus]

I would reckon that as soon as the war goes nuclear, armies are going to start confiscating horses as a matter of course when near to or passing through a horse-friendly area. In many cases, I think that they would beat the desperate hordes of civilian carnivores to the punch. Horse usually ends up pretty far down the list of possible meal items in disaster scenarios. Usually, horse starts showing up on the menu when folks are on the verge of starvation. Stored/preserved food usually goes first and if governments are acting responsibly (oxymoron) to prepare for a possible, nay likely, impending nuclear war, there should be enough of that on hand to stave off starvation for at least 3-6 months. During this "grace period", militaries would be grabbing up all of the horses they can get their hands on.


As to the bicycles vs. horses debate, I think that military bikes would be common in the T2K verse, perhaps even more common than horses.

Yes, bikes can be produced by fairly simple factories, but I don't think that their manufacture would be a high priority when the armies of the late Twilight War are all clamoring for more purely military items like ammo and uniforms.

In WWII, the TOE for German Volksgrenadier divisions called for a bicycle-mobile regiment. Usually, this regiment acted as the division's operational mobile reserve. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...volksgrenadier

The biggest edge that the horse has over the bicycle is cross-country mobility. Yes, mountain bikes are capable of some pretty amazing things when ridden by a highly experienced rider. But they can't carry the same load and cross the same kinds of terrain that a horse can.

[Legbreaker]

I tend to think that while true Cavalry units will have horses, there will be more manpower mounted on bicycles. Bikes are far easier to train for, require less upkeep, don't run away in the face of danger, etc.
Bicycles would probably be in great demand for otherwise foot mobile infantry - bicycles are the most efficient form of transport (require less energy input for great gain). The bicycles may not be an officially issued item though, and would probably be left behind with the HQ/supporting units when contact with the enemy was expected.

Horses definitely have their advantages with load carrying and movement over rough terrain, however they have many drawbacks also. There is a place for them in the military, but I don't see that place as in the fighting itself, but rather as a form of transport for soldiers who dismount short of the engagement area and move the last short distance to fight on foot.

It seems very unlikely though that military units would see much need for horses prior to fuel and parts reserves being expended (or close to them) and supply lines reduced to a dribble. A truck is far superior for transportation of supplies or troops than a team of horses.

With the lack of horse skills in the modern world, I can't really see horses being used informally early on. In other words, while all the vehicles may be stripped from a stationary artillery unit, it's extremely unlikely anyone in the unit would have the skills to use horses to shift the guns about the firebase - manpower would be used almost exclusively.

[irishboy]

I don't think anyone has said it this way, or thought about it from this angle, but bicycle infantry would be a cheap and effective replacement for motorised infantry. That way, you can save your fuel for MBT and leave the IFV at home.

And another, more non-military thought: with the scarcity of petrol/gas and the difficulty in producing fuel alcohol in large volumes, I think that the value of horses (and oxen) goes up dramatically on farms. A combine or tractor doesn't do you much good when it's stuck behind the barn with an empty tank. A team of horses can pull a plow or wagon, and can also do any number of useful jobs around a farmyard. What would be absolutely back-breaking work is done by a human is just hard work for a horse or two.

[Mohoender]

One small point about bike.

Their main drawbacks are tires, wheels and you need to grease them quite often. But their main drawback is and remain tires.

[Abbott Shaull]

Granted vehicles are superior, but the one thing to remember even with all the vehicles that Soviet Army had captured, they produced, and sent via lend lease still had to relay on Horse mounted Cavalry in large numbers. Granted many of the time they operated in area where Armor/Panzer/Tank units couldn't operate effectively, but also during the winter they seemed to be everywhere and during the spring thaw before they would be more traditional troops of Infantry and the various Armor/Mechanized Corps where they could operate.

In the Twilight War the Soviet Army would have several issues to over come including the fact that even during the Cold War, many of the Motorized Rifle and Tank Division that weren't Category A or B and not suppose to be in the first couple waves of Fronts. Even though Soviet MRD was suppose to have at least one BMP equipped MRR and two wheel based APC MRR. While the TD was suppose to have BMP equipped MRR. Some of the Category C and Mobilized Only that would be equipped with some of the oldest equipment if they were lucky the MRR would have some of the very old wheeled APCs in either Division. With two MRR of a MRD having to strip local population of civilian vehicles to motorized these two Regiments.

With combat loses at high rate I can see what little equipment that was suppose to go to Category C and Mobilized Only units being stripped from them and sent to other units already in the fight. Especially if you use V1 and thing go as badly for the Soviet as they write.

Return of mounted troops in the Soviet Army wouldn't be far off. Would they be used in the front line against NATO in Northern Germany. Short answer not likely but come late 1998 they would be seen more and more. In many cases, these troop up until then would be used much like the Germans and Soviet used cavalry in the summer as anti-partisan. Way of projecting control without tying up the APC and AFV and other vehicle that could be used else where. This is probably the role the 22nd Cavalry Army was performing in the rears areas before they were rushed up Front in response to the Third German Army Offensive in the spring of 2000. Lot of the logistical would still use vehicles, but the combat troops would be horse mounted. One of the reasons why the a large Cavalry Army could be moved.

One thing true about Cavalry on both sides, for raids no matter the size of the unit conducting the raid, they would largely be combat troops with as few support troops they could horse mount, such as horse drawn mortars so speed would keep be their bonus. Not having to worry about vehicles stopping to brew fuel.

The one thing that hampered the 22nd Cavalry Army I believe and the Polish Cavalry is that thei Divisional train and Army trains were still motorized and as they move in pursuit of the 5th Mechanized and other elements of the 3rd Germany army. They would have to leap frog. Thus saving the combat effectiveness somewhat. One Regiment would move forward secure area for trains to move forward then another Regiment would move forward allowing other support units to move forward and so on and so forth. 4th Guards Tank Army did the same thing. One of the reasons why it seems that both Armies hit so hard was that when they were able to confirm they were near the enemy, their supply trains were left with min. guard and while the Cavalry perform classic cavalry raid style and the Tank Army perform Blitzkrieg on the 5th Mechanized Division.

[Mohoender]

And another, more non-military thought: with the scarcity of petrol/gas and the difficulty in producing fuel alcohol in large volumes, I think that the value of horses (and oxen) goes up dramatically on farms. A combine or tractor doesn't do you much good when it's stuck behind the barn with an empty tank. A team of horses can pull a plow or wagon, and can also do any number of useful jobs around a farmyard. What would be absolutely back-breaking work is done by a human is just hard work for a horse or two.

One or two women will replace them to great advantage (Oops absolutely unpolitically correct)

[helbent4]

One or two women will replace them to great advantage (Oops absolutely unpolitically correct)

Mohoender,

Comparing women to slaves working in the fields like beasts of burden... it's a two-fer! You must be a Gor fanboy at heart.

My wife made me say this.

Tony

[helbent4]

It seems very unlikely though that military units would see much need for horses prior to fuel and parts reserves being expended (or close to them) and supply lines reduced to a dribble. A truck is far superior for transportation of supplies or troops than a team of horses.

With the lack of horse skills in the modern world, I can't really see horses being used informally early on. In other words, while all the vehicles may be stripped from a stationary artillery unit, it's extremely unlikely anyone in the unit would have the skills to use horses to shift the guns about the firebase - manpower would be used almost exclusively.

Leg,

Regarding the second point, that's spot-on. Taking care of horses is not exactly a lost art, but it's certainly one that is completely foreign to most modern military units. (I know the Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured Regiment keeps a mounted troop for exhibition and so there is at least some knowledge base.)

Especially the knowledge of how to use them in a tactical or logistical role. It would be like the modern navy having to re-learn how to maneuver and fight using sailing ships. Still, it could be done.

That said, I think once it was clear that mechanisation was going to get more difficult in the future, contingency plans to collect horses, train the skills needed to care for them and use them tactically would be put into place. This could have happened before the last truck broke down and it became a crisis situation (so to speak). The horses and the knowledge base to use them would be in place for an "orderly" transition later on, if you follow.

Following up an earlier point, I can see hypothetical situations where highly organised and armed marauder groups (not starving disorganised mobs) could overwhelm security forces assigned to guard food supplies and garrison agricultural areas. Especially if they get some lucky breaks and the defenders are internally on the verge of collapse already.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Mohoender,

Comparing women to slaves working in the fields like beasts of burden... it's a two-fer! You must be a Gor fanboy at heart.

My wife made me say this.

Tony

Not at all. However, in past time when horses had become unavailable or when one couldn't afford it. Women were indeed use for this tasks.

It still is true today. I didn't thought of slavery but men are too leasy and too weak to do it.

One of my friend is a little over 60 and she was born in a peasant family. Her mother was working in a field when she gave birth. She stopped her work, gave birth on the field side and went back to her home at night with the baby and the product of her work. This happened a little over 60 years in the mountainous region bordering France and Italy.

A man enters a library, he is looking for a book named "men's strength"
Unable to find it he asks the person at the desk.
She smiles and indicate him the science fiction shelves.

Mo

[helbent4]

Not at all. However, in past time when horses had become unavailable or when one couldn't afford it. Women were indeed use for this tasks.

It still is true today. I didn't thought of slavery but men are too leasy and too weak to do it.

Mo

Mo,

My wife further joked that it would be twice the hassle and half the work to use a woman instead of a horse, plus a lot more expensive to keep in shoes!

The irony is it's actually quite true: women are often used for hard labour and agricultural work and in many places are considered far better workers. Using humans as draft animals out of necessity would be a common pattern once mechanisation fails, and a fictional example is the British film "Threads".

Tony

[Mohoender]

I have not seen it but I'll be looking for it. Thanks

[helbent4]

I have not seen it but I'll be looking for it. Thanks

Mo,

Try this link:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplayd...1488&hl=en-GB#

Fast forward past some truly harrowing scenes to the end, at around 1:35:36. It's an anti-nuke movie but none the less harrowing for that.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Thanks, it worked.