German Horse Drawn Transport. (and other nations)

I would think that the dependancy on water would curtail the use of Horses or indeed mules. Camels would be more suitable.

 

Camels are not as easy to procure as horses or mules, especially for a continental european power... And camels drink as much or more water as the other, but only at intervals. So no dice there.

 

This all raises an interesting question; what're the resources better spent on? Mechanised/Motorised transport as achieved early on (with varying degrees of success) by many allied participants, or concentration on the armour based on a somewhat old fashioned transport structure as largely practiced by Germany?
Strikes me as another example of the strange way Nazi Germany had of balancing needs, demands and capacity.


The US Army did a study in the 30's on this very subject based on their experiance in WW 1. Horse drawn transport, and horses in general, are very inefficent compared to motorized transport.
Fodder requires about three times the volume and is equal in weight to gasoline required for vehicles. An army cannot rely on grazing to feed their animals as this requires too much space and takes far too much time. Thus, fodder is the only solution.
Animals also require more human maintenance than vehicles. In addition to veternary requirements, there are requirements for ferriers, blacksmiths, etc to take care of things like harnesses and shoes. Animals also take considerable water and their down time for feeding, watering, resting, etc are all much greater than motor vehicles.
Cavalry operationally and strategically really do not move much faster than foot troops do. Tactically, they can be more mobile.
As for weight capacity, animals are very limited compared to vehicles. Just look at, say, a 105mm field gun. Using horses, 6 are requried along with a seperate ammunition limber with a small number of rounds on it. The crew must ride or walk seperately for the most part. The horse team requires two or three riders as handlers and the limber might seat 2 or 3. Additional ammunition has to be carried forward by other limbers and additional horse teams.
Using a single 2 1/2 ton truck a 105 can be towed with equal or greater ammunition carried along with the entire gun crew. If the vehicle is equipped with a winch it can also assist in limbering and unlimbering the gun. A second or third truck can carry additional rounds using a single driver each. The truck can also travel at several times the speed of a horse gun.
On this last, I have a model that shows how this works theoretically. I'll see if I can find it and post some of it up.
Basically, the US Army went to vehicles because they were far more efficent and cost effective than horses.

 

What if you soak the tyres for long enough?

 

So if the German army was on par with the Allies in relation to vehicles instead of horses, do you reckon the outcome of the war would have been different?

 

Whilst motor vehicles are much more efficient than horses, the problem for most countries in the 1930s & 40s was that their motor industries weren't big enough to entirely motorise their armies. Oil supply was another issue. The USA was obviously capable of putting an entirely motorised army in the field & of supplying her Allies. The British Army motorised in the 1930s, but was then a small, regular force. According to Blitzkreig by Len Deighton, the German Army bought redundant British Army horses in the 1930s as it expanded & the British motorised.

The World War II Databook by John Ellis gives the following figures for military truck & lorry production in 1939-45:
USA 2,382,311
USSR 197,100
UK 480,943
Germany 345,914
Italy 83,000
Japan 165,945.

 

Aye! But suppose they did have the manufacturing capabilities, suppose they had the resources of the allies had back in the 30's and worked towards building their stock of trucks, jeeps etc, they would obviously have been able to transport troops/equipment faster and easier. Also saving on the need to have Vets, Ferriers & blacksmiths ETC... thus having them available to fight at the front.


I quote this from Ambrose:
"At a time when most of the German Army was still horse-drawn, The Americans had thousands and thousands of trucks and trailers in France. They were being used to transport men, material and gasoline from the beaches of Normandy to the front. Ike ordered them to drop whatever they were doing and start hauling his reinforcements to the Ardennes.
The response can only be called incredible. On December 17 alone, 11,000 trucks and trailers carried 60,000 men, plus ammunition, gasoline, medical supplies and other material, into the Ardennes. In the first week of battle, Eisenhower was able to move 250,000 men and 50,000vehicles into the fray. This was mobility with a vengence. It was an achievement unprecedented in the history of war. Not even in Vietnam, not even in the 1991 Gulf War, was the U.S. Army capable of moving so many men and so much equipment so quickly".


Imagine Hitler had that capability?


Just a Hypothetical question.



P.s. I still think that photo of the Mule with a Panzerfaust is a classic.

 

2 horse-power truck

Pancerne ciekawostki. - Ogólnopolski miesiêcznik ODKRYWCA



I think the caption should read "German panzergrenadiers on the march! April 1945" .....

 

I saw what appeared to be a new book on German trailers, wagons and similar towed kit recently. It was one of those eastern european photo style books. I can't remember the details but I saw it on Paul Meekins stall.
Paul Meekins Military & History Books

 

One of my favourites. What does the team think. Wehrmacht in India or liberated Tiergarten 'We'arehere'...