Cavalry in Twilight 2000

[James Langham]

again, please comment.

[antimedic]

good stuff

[Raellus]

Again, good stuff James. I like the formatting and the "interviews". You might want to mention the common use of cavalry as scouts. You could cite the U.S. 5th ID's 4-12 cavalry at the Battle of Kalisz as a prime and instantly recognizable example.

[James Langham]

Again, good stuff James. I like the formatting and the "interviews". You might want to mention the common use of cavalry as scouts. You could cite the U.S. 5th ID's 4-12 cavalry at the Battle of Kalisz as a prime and instantly recognizable example.

Version 2 will incorporate more on the tactical use as scouts and the 4-12. Anyone got any useful detail on 4-12?

[Webstral]

This is a splendid addition to our growing body of material. Good work finding photographs to insert into your narrative. Your narrative voice is a good one. I look forward to reading more of your work, James.

Webstral

[dragoon500ly]

Excellent material!!!

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes a really well thought out and document write up. I know we have discussed the use of Cavalry but don't remember if it was on this forum, the old site before we moved here or over on Yahoo Groups...

One of the things that I always thought was that the number of troops in each troop and squadron were quite low until the Custer Last Stand thread and found out how large the 7th Cavalry and how many Officers and Troopers were assigned to other duties...include the Commanding Officer who seems to not have spent much time leading his Regiment...

[dragoon500ly]

The only real drawback to horse-mounted cavalry is the capacity of the horse to carry rider and equipment. While a bit dated (this is the official equipment and weights from the 1870s) the following list gives some idea of what could be carried.

Halter: 2lbs 1oz
Watering Bridle: 1lb 1.5oz
Bridle: 2lbs 13oz
Saddle: 14lbs 13.5oz
Saddle Bags (empty): 2lbs 2oz
Filling of near side pouch of saddle bags (rations): 11lbs 2oz
Filling of off side puch of saddle bags (1pr socks, 1 pair shorts, 2 shirts, 40rds
carbine ammo, toilet articles): 7lbs 8oz
Forage Sack (empty): 6oz
15lbs of oats in forage sack: 15lbs
Lariat and picket pin: 3lbs 1.5oz
Greatcoat: 4lbs 6.5oz
Brush and shoe pouch (empty): 1lb
Curry-comb and brush in near side pocket: 1lb 8oz
2 horseshoes and 15 shoe nails on off side pocket; 2lbs
2 blankets: 6lbs 14oz
Saddle cover: 1lb
Surcingle: 11.5oz
Saber and slings: 4lbs 12oz
Waist-belt and plate: 1lb
Pistol and holster: 3lbs 2oz
Carbine sling and swivel: 10lbs 4oz
Carbine cartridge box (empty): 1lb
24 rds of carbine ammo: 2lbs
Pistol cartridge box (empty): 4oz
12 rounds of pistol ammo: 14oz
Man: 140lbs

All of this gives a total weight for a five day field exercise of 240lbs, 12.5oz.

Now, of course certain items can be dropped from the list but the key thing to remember is that the weights carried must balance between the near and off-sides of the horses. This is to prevent injury to the animal. And the maximum load that can be carried is 240lbs. This helps explain the extensive train that has to support horse cavalry.

[Tegyrius]

Man: 140lbs
That right there is going to be a huge limiting factor. Even after a few years of short rations and no Burger King, few soldiers who grew up with late 20th century nutrition are going to be near that weight.

- C.

[dragoon500ly]

That right there is going to be a huge limiting factor. Even after a few years of short rations and no Burger King, few soldiers who grew up with late 20th century nutrition are going to be near that weight.

- C.

That's the first problem. Its just a guess, but I have the feeling that the average trooper is going to be right around 160-170lbs...and don't forget that the horse on the previous list is a cavalry-trained Morgan breed...may not be too many of those running around Europe. So the actual horses available will be either draft horses which can carry more weight, but are slower and larger. Or a lot of ponies which are faster, but can't carry as much weight.

[dragoon500ly]

It's occured to me that a lot of people on the list may not enjoy the sport of horse-back riding....and yes I am one of those. Following is a description of the various parts of a military saddle and what they do...

The saddle itself has a prommel (that pointee thing that sticks up at the front) and a cantle (that raised bar looking thing at the back), they are connected by a pair of trees (the bracing for the seat). The trees can be adjusted to better fit the horse's back. A prommel plate is the metal piece bolted to the prommel that is used to steady the rider as he mounts/dismounts. A cantle plate is bolted to the rear of the rear of the cantle and helps hold the cantle skirt on (this is the flap of leather that juts out about 5-6 inches from the back of the cantle.

Fastened to the trees are the stirrup-bar plates (these are the main connecting points for the stirrups). There are also several straps bolted at front and rear that will be used to secure equipment.

The seat is normally made from rawhide, nailed to the prommel and cantle and then laced to the trees with thongs.

The pad, normally made of sheepskin and stuffed with curled horse hair and guilted is then laced to the seat, prommel and cantle.

The girth is then attached to the tree by both thongs and a buckle/loop arrangment. This is the belly band that holds the saddle and rider to the horse.

2 Chapes are buckled to the trees, these are the leather pieces that protect the legs and buckle onto the stirrups.

2 Stirrups are buckled to the bottom of the chapes. These can be wood or metal and usually take a upside down U-shape with a flat bar on the bottom. Stirrups can be either open or closed. A open stirrup is vulnerable to snagging on branches, the rider's foot can also slip forward and allow the rider to be dragged (this is the reason why a trooper's boot normally has a higher heel). A closed stirrup protects the front part of the rider's foot, but conceals any damage to the stirrup (causing the rider to fall when he tries to mount).

The crupper is a Y-shaped strap that ends in a padded ring. The horses tail is inserted into the ring which slides up to the base of the tail, the top of the Y then buckles to the cantle. It is used to help stabilize the saddle when moving up and down hills.

The surcingle is another Y-shaped strap, the upper pieces buckle on either side of the prommel and the bottom strapped, formed into a ring, slips over the girth. It is used to stabilize the saddle when moving up and down.

The halter is the network of straps that fit around the horses held and a strap that runs down and is buckled to the surcingle.

The Bridle contains the bit, straps onto the halter and has two reins leading back to the rider.

The saddle blanket is about 54 inches square and is folded several times before being placed on the horse, the saddle is then placed and strapped into place.


The problem of converting a unit to horse-mounted cavalry would require a lot of careful scrouinging to get saddles and riding horses. Not to mention training troopers to ride, and the services of blacksmiths and saddlewrights...not exactly common jobs now days!

[Mohoender]

Nice work but as in previous talking about cavalry, I continue to disagree with several things.

I agree with the idea that Europe at the time of T2K lacks the proper number of horses but, provided you can get them, cavalry units can be very useful.

I agree about the fact that soldiers capable of caring for the horses will be in small numbers but that is not a real problem. Between 1917 and 1921, Trotsky managed to built the best cavalry in the world, numbering in thousands and coming out from nothing.

I also agree with the idea that cavalry will be mounted light infantry. However, they will be very usefull to conduct deep penetration raid against communication lines and peacefull towns.

I agree with the idea that lancers will be a question of fashion but, sabers will be readopted really fast, at least as a sign of pride.

Cavalry units can travel 60 miles in a day and they are very useful when used in collaboration with armored units. Rough terrain is their weekpoint not bad terrain. The germans experienced it in WW2. As their mechanized units were stuck in the snow and mud of Russia, the Soviet cavalry was freely conducting devastating raids on their rear.

In T2K they won't suffer from their worse ennemy: aircrafts.

Supply will be a problem of course but so it is for everyone. Cavalry units will have to develop their foraging technics. A standard soviet unit at the time of the russian revolution had about the lightest support unit (10-15% of the fighting force).

Whatever, they will not appear over night. If you take the case of pact forces you can expect most cavalry units to be from Siberia-Mongolia and Central Asia.

[Mohoender]

The problem of converting a unit to horse-mounted cavalry would require a lot of careful scrouinging to get saddles and riding horses. Not to mention training troopers to ride, and the services of blacksmiths and saddlewrights...not exactly common jobs now days!

Trotsky managed to put factory workers from Moscow and Saint Petersburg on Horseback in weeks. Where is the problem to do the same with leasy westerners as we are? Of course you can walk back through the all of Europe.

I don't think that a US commander from Texas lost in the middle of Poland with the need to improve access to supply and protection of its flank will give you the choice. If I'm that commander and get my hands on 50-100 horses. I'll order one of my subordinates to organize a cavalry unit. Then, this unit will have to be used as scouts, raiders, covering forces and I'll use them as support mounted infantry to what is left of my armored force.

[Rainbow Six]

Nice piece of work.

For anyone interested in this subject, I'd also recommend a book called "Horse Soldiers" by Doug Stanton. It covers the activities of a US Special Forces Detachment working with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and and has a fair amount of detail on the subject of US troops (some of whom were experienced horsemen, some of whom were not) operating on horseback.

[James Langham]

I don't think that a US commander from Texas lost in the middle of Poland with the need to improve access to supply and protection of its flank will give you the choice. If I'm that commander and get my hands on 50-100 horses. I'll order one of my subordinates to organize a cavalry unit. Then, this unit will have to be used as scouts, raiders, covering forces and I'll use them as support mounted infantry to what is left of my armored force.

That might make it in as a quote!

[Raellus]

In this thread and in other related threads here on this forum, several people have brought up the issue of Europe's low horse population in the 1990s making T2K cavalry figures unfeasible. Of course, just 50-odd years earlier, there were enough horses for most continental European militaries AND civilians to harness (literally) for use carrying cavalry and hauling wagons and even artillery pieces. In the intervening years, the population decreased dramatically as motor vehicle transport became more commonplace. So, how can we justify a mid-'90s horse population that could support the numbers of cavalry units (especially Soviet and WP) given in canon? Here are a couple of possible explanations.

Perhaps Cold War militaries in the T2K timeline somehow anticipated that horses would again become useful beasts of burden and began programs to breed horses for wartime military and/or civilian use. To me this seems fairly unlikely.

Another possible explanation is that the Soviet Union, shortly after (or even before) invading China, realized that they simply did not have adequate motor transport to support large scale operations. So, they began a crash horse requisition/breeding program to make up the difference. Originally, most of these horses were used as draught animals but, over time, proper cavalry units were formed and, as combat vehicles were destroyed or could no longer be repaired, horse cavalry became more common. In the use of horse cavalry, the USSR/WP took the lead, w/ NATO coming later to the party. Many horses were subsequently captured by NATO and used against their former owners. By 2000, horse cavalry was a fairly common sight.

What are your thoughts? Can you think of other ways to reconcile the RW horse population in Europe in the mid-'90s with the higher numbers implied in T2K canon?

[James Langham]

In this thread and in other related threads here on this forum, several people have brought up the issue of Europe's low horse population in the 1990s making T2K cavalry figures unfeasible. Of course, just 50-odd years earlier, there were enough horses for most continental European militaries AND civilians to harness (literally) for use carrying cavalry and hauling wagons and even artillery pieces. In the intervening years, the population decreased dramatically as motor vehicle transport became more commonplace. So, how can we justify a mid-'90s horse population that could support the numbers of cavalry units (especially Soviet and WP) given in canon? Here are a couple of possible explanations.

Perhaps Cold War militaries in the T2K timeline somehow anticipated that horses would again become useful beasts of burden and began programs to breed horses for wartime military and/or civilian use. To me this seems fairly unlikely.

Another possible explanation is that the Soviet Union, shortly after (or even before) invading China, realized that they simply did not have adequate motor transport to support large scale operations. So, they began a crash horse requisition/breeding program to make up the difference. Originally, most of these horses were used as draught animals but, over time, proper cavalry units were formed and, as combat vehicles were destroyed or could no longer be repaired, horse cavalry became more common. In the use of horse cavalry, the USSR/WP took the lead, w/ NATO coming later to the party. Many horses were subsequently captured by NATO and used against their former owners. By 2000, horse cavalry was a fairly common sight.

What are your thoughts? Can you think of other ways to reconcile the RW horse population in Europe in the mid-'90s with the higher numbers implied in T2K canon?

It's a really difficult thing to reconcile but I can't see cavalry programmes in place that early by armies.

I'm reluctant to abandon cavalry though as they are such an evocative part of the background.

A few random thoughts:

* the Soviets move to cavalry first, they probably have better access to horses. Maybe NATO initially starts by using captured horses.

* we are assuming that cavalry units are all cavalry. Maybe the proportion of mounted troops is lower than 100%. Not really keen on this as an option personally.

* Non-canon but a large economic crisis with rising fuel costs about 1990-1991 might result in increased horse use in certain areas at about the right time.

* One thing that dawned on me after writing is the appearance of an occasional horse towed artillery piece for atmosphere.

[Raellus]

* One thing that dawned on me after writing is the appearance of an occasional horse towed artillery piece for atmosphere.

I think this would be fairly common, especially in infantry divisions, come 2000. In WWII, a lot of German field artillery, if not a majority of it, was horse-drawn. The Soviets were better equipped, having access to Lend-Lease trucks, but they also used horses to pull artillery pieces.

There's a pencil drawing of what looks like a Soviet 122 or 152mm gun being drawn by horses in the v1.0 rulebook.

[Mohoender]

Canon figures for horses are not that high in fact. A few thousands horsemen for the soviet with a more important amount for the Poles. Moreover, I agree, these units are probably not entirely made of cavalry.

For my part I use the 1988 figures which are higher than the mid-1990's figures. USSR has not collapsed and horses remain more numerous than today.

China: 11,000,000
USA: 10,500,000
Warsaw Pact: 9,000,000 (USSR: 5.7 / Mongolia: 1.9 / Poland: 1.4)
Mexico: 6,100,000
Brazil: 5,200,000
Argentina: 3,100,000

World: 64,600,000

First, remember than per canon most soviet cavalry is located in Poland where you have the most important number of available horses in Europe.

Second, USSR has been at war longer than NATO and indeed might have launched a major breeding program before the war. IMO the initial program was not intended for military use but to replace mechanization in the various collective farms (US industry is strong enough to supply both its military and the civilian market, I doubt that USSR Industry could do the same). As the war drags more and more vehicles to the front, they need to be replaced. As the industry focus solely on producing military equipments it cannot supply these same farms. Then, food has to be carried to the cities by horse carts.

Third, I always considered that the use of horses on the american continent was heavily underestimated. The conflict between Mexico and USA almost cannot take place without horses. Where do the Mexican find the number of vehicles needed for such a large scale military operation?

Fourth, breeding programs don't take so long. In 1985, France had 40,000 draft horses. By 1991 that number was back to 100,000. if you use that figure that gives you a potential number of horses in USSR equal to 20,000,000.

In 1936-1937, the Soviet Union horse population was devastated under Stalin terror (and I'm not kidding). Four years later they had quite a fair number of cavalry divisions and during the winters of 1942 and 1943, the soviet cavalry was already everywhere. Among their major success, the victory at Stalingrad and the rapid offensive in Manchuria.

[Raellus]

Third, I always considered that the use of horses on the american continent was heavily underestimated. The conflict between Mexico and USA almost cannot take place without horses. Where do the Mexican find the number of vehicles needed for such a large scale military operation?

I live in a rural area north of Tucson. Four of the households on my block of 14 houses (on 1.5 acres each) have one or more horses on the property. There's a weekly "rodeo" held next door to the local middle school. Tucson schools get two days off for Rodeo Break (in February) and the Rodeo/Stock show was a big annual event in Denver when I lived there.

My point is, based on first-hand experience, I agree with you Mo. There are a lot of privately owned horses here in the States. Plus, the BLM has to cull wild horse herds living on Federal land every couple of years. It's still a pretty controversial event.

Fourth, breeding programs don't take so long. In 1985, France had 40,000 draft horses. By 1991 that number was back to 100,000. if you use that figure that gives you a potential number of horses in USSR equal to 20,000,000.

This is fascinating info, Mo. If the Soviets had started such a program in the early '90s, they'd be able to supply most of the horses used by both sides in the European war by 2000 on their own.

Perhaps claims that horse population figures for T2K were exagerated were... exagerated.

[Legbreaker]

We have indeed talked about form cavalry units previously and the earlier thread is full of juicy goodness. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=614
Note that the comments about the diminished availablity of horses still stands...

[Mohoender]

The key word here is potential. Nevertheless why should they be exagerated.

Prior to ww2, the Soviet Union had a little over 30 cavalry division (about 250,000 horsemen).

In T2K they have no more than that with an average of 1500 men in a cavalry unit. At most the red army has 50,000 horsemen. Why do you think this to be exagerated?

By 2000, that number is much lower:

USSR: 16,700 cavalry to which you add the 51st TD (4,000 in Austria). All of these units are probably not entire cavalry. That is equal to two WW2 cavalry division with one or two additional brigades.

Poland: 6,300 regular cavalry and 800 border guard cavalry.

Czechoslovakia: a few thousands mostly border guards.

Where do you see these figures to be exagerated especially as you have no indication on their level of readiness?

[Raellus]

Where do you see these figures to be exagerated especially as you have no indication on their level of readiness?

I hope that this question was directed at me Mo because I agree with you completely.

[Legbreaker]

Don't forget that horses, and animals in general, are likely to have suffered even more casualties than humans due to the effects of the war. Radiation, disease, exposure, starvation are all going to hit them harder. Then there's predation by humans and other carnivorves (dogs in particular, potentially cats, rats and so forth hunting the smaller animals) looking for anything to fill their bellies in the cold long months post nuke.
While the world human population may have roughly halved, I see animal numbers (particularly horses, cows, pigs and other potential food animals) being absolutely decimated and down to maybe 5-10% of 1996-97 numbers. This percentage will be even lower in areas hit particularly hard by nukes, cold weather and rampaging hordes of starving citydwellers.

[Panther Al]

Now that I have thought about it, I can easily see in europe the slow increase in the use of horses even before nukes fly for the simple reason that civilian access to fuel will dwindle fast from day one. By the time fuel supplies for the military dries up horse should almost be common outside cities, and more so the further out in the sticks you go. Whilst legbreaker has a very good point, I believe that civilians, even after the TDM, would see horses as far to valuable not to take some effort to protect them, which might lead to problems when the army comes looking for them. Another very valid point was brought up as well: gathering the tools and equipment needed, as well as the skills. Saddles and farriers don't grow on trees, but I could see some serious effort put into it the further along the war goes, but it will take time.

[irishboy]

This might take the conversation in a new direction, but I would think that as far as a mounted infantry version of cavalry goes, riding a bicycle would be superior to horseback in many situations.

First, minimal extra training. Most of the soldiers would be familiar with bicycles from childhood.

Second, significantly less specialized gear needed. And what is needed is often light weight and bike-portable.

Third, easier maintenence. Especially when you consider all the tangential apects of 'horse maintenence' like a breeding program, training the animals for combat, and feeding a large number of large & hungry animals.

Fourth, compare speeds & daily travel rates. A soldier on horseback has a significant short term speed advantage, but over a daylong march, probably covers 2 to 3 times as much ground as he would on foot. A soldier on a bicycle is slower in a the short term, but still faster than on foot. Over a full day of travel though, bicycle troops could travel up to twice as far as mounted troops.

I did a few quick minutes of research and found this site:
http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/info/farandfast.html

It seems legitimate. Estimated average top speed of a horse 30 mph (48 km/h). It also lists daily distance traveled by cavalry troops (in a race) to be 60 miles (96 km).

Judging from my own experience, most people would be able to reach a max speed of 20 mph (32 kph) on a bicycle, but should be able to cover over 100 miles (160 km) total over an 8 hour day.

Another link: http://www.letour.fr/2010/TDF/LIVE/us/200/classement/index.html

I'll be the first to admit, a bike trooper would not be a trained and conditioned cyclist like a Tour De France rider, but I think it gives a good basis for comparison. A quick check through a handful of stages shows that they typically travelled 180-200 km per day. Most of the winning times (for just that day) were in the neighborhood of 4h40mins to 5h. Even considering the difference in fitness, allowing an extra 3h time to finish seems very reasonable.

End of my thoughts on the subject. And I won't take credit for this idea. I recently reread the Emberverse series by S.M. Stirling. Post-apocalyptic, with strong elements of fantasy that grow throughout the series. But he does try to make the situations as factually-based as the setting allows. And bicycle cavalry vs. horse cavalry is a recurring question in the various novels.

[Legbreaker]

We have multiple references in multiple books of "hordes of starving refugees" swarming over farmland like a plague of locusts. They stripped the countryside bare, eating absolutely everything with little regard for next years crops (in other words, they ate the seed which was supposed to be planted the following spring, thereby dooming hundreds of thousands, if not millions to death by starvation).
Given that environment, I doubt anyone would have been able to save many horses unless they rode them like the devil a few hundred miles through effectively hostile terrain to safety.

[Panther Al]

All very good points, and by and large correct, though I think comparing the TDF to anything a soldier could do is a bit more of a stretch than you think, just my opinion. :) But the one advantage that horse has over bike is load. Horses simply carry more. And you can always hook a couple of horses to a wagon for bulky supplies - rickshaws don't count the same - that would demand the addition of trucks to a bike unit. That said, I can very easily see the presence of large numbers of bikes in units for those reasons as mentioned in the post, but they wouldn't be in the cavalry role that horse units would.

[Panther Al]

We have multiple references in multiple books of "hordes of starving refugees" swarming over farmland like a plague of locusts. They stripped the countryside bare, eating absolutely everything with little regard for next years crops (in other words, they ate the seed which was supposed to be planted the following spring, thereby dooming hundreds of thousands, if not millions to death by starvation).
Given that environment, I doubt anyone would have been able to save many horses unless they rode them like the devil a few hundred miles through effectively hostile terrain to safety.


Oh, to be sure. Especially in areas near urban masses and those that are "easy" to reach (ie along major road networks). Any farm within a hundred miles of a large urbanised area will be stripped bare, but the further out you get the more warning the farmers will have of what's coming and they will take steps to protect what's theirs. I tend to think that this is why there was any food available at all, and that doesn't count areas that have military units parked at, even at that early stage of the war, the senior commanders could see the train wreck coming and would take steps.

[Matt W]

Bicycle cavalry in WW1


http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=0ba22f69-119c-4465-8a22-5a398ee8ee33&sponsor=

The mention of Baden-Powell and his kite photography is also interesting. Who needs a UAV?

[Webstral]

Although I hate to hasten the end of the world by agreeing with Leg six or more times in a single 12-month period, I have to agree with him about the effects of the war on horses. 1998 is going to be very tough on anything with a pound of meat on its bones, even if we ignore the effects of nukes and chemical weapons on horse stocks in Europe. The western US will get off fairly lightly, and so the capture of wild mustangs might be practical. (Who gave me that idea? Thanks, whoever it was.) Between the Irish Sea and the Urals, though, the horse population is going to take a real beating.

There’s nothing wrong with having a few cavalry units. I just tend to agree with all the posters who argue that cavalry units in Europe will have to wring the maximum utility out of the horses that are available. Also, cavalry might be restricted to fairly small units (like 4-12 CAV). A so-called cavalry division might have only a couple of hundred cavalry troopers. The rest (the support types) might use light vehicles or bicycles.

I seem to remember a thread on bicycle use. The Japanese made tremendous use of them on the Malay Peninsula in 1942. With very little modification, bicycles can be used to pull carts and small trailers, thus being transformed into cargo haulers. This is how most civilian traffic moves between Sierra Vista and Tucson by 2001. During the summer, a rider starts one leg at first light. The return trip is started as late in the day as the length of trip and light will allow.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

As a young and relatively unfit 16yr old, I could easily manage 20kph on a bicycle. Also a properly constructed bike, with panniers, etc, can carry quite a load.
Given that and the fact tehy don't need somebody to hold them while the rider goes into combat, fodder isn't an issue, etc, I can see bicycles seeing a wider use than horses.
...have military units parked at, even at that early stage of the war, the senior commanders could see the train wreck coming and would take steps.

But could they really do much about it? The Last Submarine for example has the 43th MPs overrun by mobs of starving people as they tried to protect the docks. I can't see an infantry or armoured division, which was positioned to defend against an enemy army, being able to do a lot to resist their own civilian population.

[Panther Al]

Not disagreeing- bikes will be a lot more common than horses, after all even with things being as messed up as they are, setting up a small bike factory would be relatively easy (not so sure about sourcing tyres, but...). In fact I think most infantry units will be awash in them.
My point is that the use of the unit will shape if its horse mounted or bike mounted. Bikes are limited in that if you want to carry more than yourself and 20 or so kilos of stuff you need trucks, and the stills that goes with them. But you don't need any specialised personnel and feed horses will. Horsed units on the other hand can pull wagons and artillery, can, for the most part, live off the land with little or no supply of "tech". But, they do require training, both to ride as well as trained farriers, vets, etc.
So: a few horse units yes, primarily in the scout/screen/raid type of uses, but the bulk of the average joe's in the larger units riding bikes as much as possible, just in a non-tactical way.

[Panther Al]

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.

[Mohoender]

I hope that this question was directed at me Mo because I agree with you completely.

Exactly and as I see we agree.:)

I also read someone talking of bicycle cavalry. That is something I entirely agree with as well. I never understood why bicycle troops were not used in Krakow. It is stated that the city is producing bicycles but none of the units would use it. Huge doubts on my part.

[waiting4something]

As a young and relatively unfit 16yr old, I could easily manage 20kph on a bicycle. Also a properly constructed bike, with panniers, etc, can carry quite a load.
Given that and the fact tehy don't need somebody to hold them while the rider goes into combat, fodder isn't an issue, etc, I can see bicycles seeing a wider use than horses.


But could they really do much about it? The Last Submarine for example has the 43th MPs overrun by mobs of starving people as they tried to protect the docks. I can't see an infantry or armoured division, which was positioned to defend against an enemy army, being able to do a lot to resist their own civilian population.

I bet they where so hungry they could eat a horse.:salook:

[helbent4]

But could they really do much about it? The Last Submarine for example has the 43th MPs overrun by mobs of starving people as they tried to protect the docks. I can't see an infantry or armoured division, which was positioned to defend against an enemy army, being able to do a lot to resist their own civilian population.

Leg,

Bikes make a lot of sense. I guess horses are just a lot "sexier" if not as realistic!

(Regarding the following, I don't mean to disagree with you personally but you touch on a couple things I want to comment on.)

I think that while some kind of government remains, they would take steps to protect their food supplies like farms and agricultural areas if they could. While food is scarce overall it's not evenly so, and the farms where the horses are might be able to feed them long enough until they're requisitioned. For the sake of canon, this is probably what happened, even if it's probably not likely. People starving in the cities

Starving and/or panicked mobs overrunning military units happens from time to time in post-apoc fiction and RPGs, but I wonder how realistic that is. We tend to assume mobs of desperate starving people are like Japanese or Russian human waves, but they're really the opposite. (Also, a human wave is not usually a successful tactic.) Fanatical soldiers charging the enemy are driven to their deaths by their officers or inspired by ideology, but people who just want to live want to, well, live. That's their primary objective. When the first rank gets mowed down by the machineguns, everyone else in the leaderless starving mob says "whoa! Time to see if there's food the other direction!"

My assumption for units like the 43rd is "overrun by a mob" may be the official story, covering up a more difficult but likely truth that they likely fell apart due to desertion, mutiny, etc.

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Not disagreeing- bikes will be a lot more common than horses, after all even with things being as messed up as they are, setting up a small bike factory would be relatively easy (not so sure about sourcing tyres, but...). In fact I think most infantry units will be awash in them.
My point is that the use of the unit will shape if its horse mounted or bike mounted. Bikes are limited in that if you want to carry more than yourself and 20 or so kilos of stuff you need trucks, and the stills that goes with them. But you don't need any specialised personnel and feed horses will. Horsed units on the other hand can pull wagons and artillery, can, for the most part, live off the land with little or no supply of "tech". But, they do require training, both to ride as well as trained farriers, vets, etc.
So: a few horse units yes, primarily in the scout/screen/raid type of uses, but the bulk of the average joe's in the larger units riding bikes as much as possible, just in a non-tactical way.

Early bike tires were made of wood with leather "tires". In the Vietnam War, the NVA made tires for their bicycles from old truck tires. I can actually see this sort of cavalry far more readily than I can see horse-mounted cavalry.

[Abbott Shaull]

Early bike tires were made of wood with leather "tires". In the Vietnam War, the NVA made tires for their bicycles from old truck tires. I can actually see this sort of cavalry far more readily than I can see horse-mounted cavalry.

Even in WWII there were troops with the UK forces during the landings at and after D-Day that brought bikes over for this purpose.

Yeah, I can see these type of lightly armed troops being employed, doing much of the work that many of the so called small Cavalry units were doing. One of the advantages is that with Cavalry if they dismount to fight, you still need to leave handlers and protection with the horses. Where as bike mounted troops ideally you would need security element with the bikes once dismounted, but then again it wouldn't actually be needed if it was a situation where every rifle counted on the Line.

[Abbott Shaull]

Exactly and as I see we agree.:)

I also read someone talking of bicycle cavalry. That is something I entirely agree with as well. I never understood why bicycle troops were not used in Krakow. It is stated that the city is producing bicycles but none of the units would use it. Huge doubts on my part.

You know a GM could just simply take the Horse Cavalry and say they were bicycle troops. Also same with some of the larger concentrations of Cavalry such as the former 14th Polish MRD in which they had several mounted Cavalry units. I could see keeping one or two and converting the others to bicycle mounted units.

[Adm.Lee]

I like the original article, but reading the rest of the thread has made bicycles make more sense in T2k. I think I am going to pencil a note or two into my random encounter tables to substitute "bike" for "horse" in most cases, especially on roads.

For instance, a merchant or military convoy might use horses for pulling the wagons, but the guards and especially the scouts should be bike-mounted.

I do remember that Krakow (and maybe some other cities) mentioned bicycle manufacturing (and repair), but it never struck me that no one was described as riding them.

[James Langham]

Even in WWII there were troops with the UK forces during the landings at and after D-Day that brought bikes over for this purpose.

Yeah, I can see these type of lightly armed troops being employed, doing much of the work that many of the so called small Cavalry units were doing. One of the advantages is that with Cavalry if they dismount to fight, you still need to leave handlers and protection with the horses. Where as bike mounted troops ideally you would need security element with the bikes once dismounted, but then again it wouldn't actually be needed if it was a situation where every rifle counted on the Line.

Although they did dump the bikes on landing as useless.

There was the Hungarian (?) Fast Corps in Barbarossa who used bikes.

Actually I can see bikes being were useful in a home defence situation "when the bell rings all get straight to HQ."

Their biggest disadvantage is a lack of cross country mobility.

[dragoon500ly]

Although they did dump the bikes on landing as useless.

There was the Hungarian (?) Fast Corps in Barbarossa who used bikes.

Actually I can see bikes being were useful in a home defence situation "when the bell rings all get straight to HQ."

Their biggest disadvantage is a lack of cross country mobility.

I don't know about the cross-country mobility, I've seen bikes ridden on the sides of mountains and in deserts...

When biking supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the NVA wouldn't ride the bike, they would put a socket and attach a wooden pole in place of the seat and the "rider" would walk along side guiding the bike, often with loads of up to 400lbs.

Bikes could also be adapted to tow two and four wheel carts. There are sketchs and pics of bikes towing two wheel machine gun carts. Or teams of bikes attached to a shaft and towing small wagons.

Sitting down and looking over the comments already posted...I think a stronger case could be made for bicycle troops and then use a smaller number of horse-mounted troops for areas where you couldn't get a bike into.

[Mohoender]

As much as I think that bicycles are interesting and should be developped by GM. I won't consider them superior to horses.

Bicycle troops will not be useful in the same situation than horses. Bicycle troops are really efficient in defensive tactics but they are seldom capable of conducting the raids that Horse cavalry can conduct.

In addition, I would expect bicycle to have replaced horses in Asia but not in USSR. I have never seen any use of bicycle troops in Russia.

Something else plead for the reality of horse cavalry among the soviet army. Cavalry had been used actively up to 1947 and the last units were disbanded in the mid-1950's. Officers and soldiers who had served with these units will still be around, old (over 55) but still around.

You might also have more horses surviving in Russia than in US. While US soldiers might hesitate in shooting at a crowd of civilians, KGB and red army troops might not be that regarding.

Other troops will be equally useful as well:
- Camel troops in desert areas
- Ox patrol in Asia (I'm not inventing it, i saw that somewhere)
- Dogs in Canada and Siberia
- Mules in mountains

I forgot: both bikes and annimals should be around.

[Webstral]

As is so often the case once we discuss the post-Exchange possibilities and probabilities, a wide variety of options exist for “cavalry� units. Units will develop their own tactics and doctrines based on the available manpower and equipment, as is so often the case in Twilight: 2000. Mo, I’m glad you brought in other animals. Pack animals other than horses might be used to do all of the load bearing, leaving the horses to transport only a cavalryman and his basic load.

I think we would see a lot of these ideas maturing by the end of 2003. Breeding programs would be providing some adult animals by this point. At the same time, the global fleet of operable vehicles would have shrunk even further. Operable vehicles probably will have been stripped to the absolute minimum weight to conserve fuel.

Lamentably for the US, Mexico has a leg up when it comes to post-Exchange horse-powered formations. Mexico enters the Twilight War with a lot more of its rural economy still dependent on equines. The very limited nuclear strikes on Mexico won’t affect Mexico’s horse population the way the European horse population will be affected. Hunger in 1998 will take its toll on the horse population, but the relatively intact Mexican Army and police will be in a better position to requisition horses than, say, Polish or German authorities. One might even argue that the Mexican state would have deliberately rounded up all horses in places like Oaxaca and the Yucatan, where horses are still to be found in some numbers and where the locals are predominantly of non-European ancestry.

Consequently, we might see a fair number of cavalry troops in operation against US forces. This has some implications for Fort Huachuca, since I have consistently maintained that the Mexican armor and motor transport is going to be sent to Second Mexican Army in California and Fourth Mexican Army in Texas. In the considerable area of Arizona, cavalry will be superior raiders and reconnaissance forces compared to foot mobile infantry and light AFV that might run out of fuel at an inopportune moment. This is going to require more thought.

Getting back to the horse population, some time ago I posted a few notes about the role of wild horses in the emerging Arizona economy of early 2001. SAMAD becomes a major consumer of captured horses once troops from Huachuca start reaching out into the state in force in 1999. By “consumer� I mean that Fort Huachuca purchases these horses for military use. Horses (among other items) flow to SAMAD from the northern parts of the state, while manufactured items—particularly new small arms and ammunition—flow back. Flagstaff, home of the remnants of the Arizona state government and 1st Brigade (AZSTAG), also purchases horses. Once the remnants of the marauder bands operating throughout the northern and eastern portions of Arizona are hunted down or dispersed, the surviving towns throughout the region can turn to producing food, animal transport, and raw materials for SAMAD in exchange for a variety of manufactured goods.


Webstral

[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.php?t=1270&highlight=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):D

[helbent4]

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

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.:);):D

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/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488&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.:)

[helbent4]

Thanks, it worked.:)

Mo,

Apparently, post-apoc Britons will completely lose their sense of humour, if not most of the ability to use language altogether.

Tony

[HorseSoldier]

I'd think on a battlefield where automatic weapons, including lots of crew served stuff, is endemic means that T2K horse cavalry in most theaters and places are going to be dragoons. Nobody in the major theaters of operations are going to be looking at cavalry charges or any kind of aggressive use of horses -- A) because it's a great recipe for getting killed and B) I think people who've speculated about horses being a pretty scarce resource circa 2000 are right and getting your ride killed or maimed in a firefight probably means you're right back to being foot slogging infantry.

(This situation might be different in places where even modest marauder bands don't have a Dishka, a couple LMGs and assault rifles all around.)

Another thing to consider is that unless a unit not only has the resources to field a horse cavalry contingent but to also equip each trooper with a couple remounts, then the cavalry troopers are going to doing a lot of walking, day to day, to keep their horses from getting fried. (Or their parent unit might seize any and all horse trailers they could find, or fabricate the same, to give strategic/operational mobility to horse cavalry units that would then rely on their horses for tactical mobility.)

For some ideas on how modernish horse cavalry worked, it's worth noting that the Rhodesians, the colonial Portuguese, and the South Africans all used horse cavalry units in COIN ops in Africa from the 60s into the 80s (and with generally good results).

[Abbott Shaull]

I'd think on a battlefield where automatic weapons, including lots of crew served stuff, is endemic means that T2K horse cavalry in most theaters and places are going to be dragoons. Nobody in the major theaters of operations are going to be looking at cavalry charges or any kind of aggressive use of horses -- A) because it's a great recipe for getting killed and B) I think people who've speculated about horses being a pretty scarce resource circa 2000 are right and getting your ride killed or maimed in a firefight probably means you're right back to being foot slogging infantry.

(This situation might be different in places where even modest marauder bands don't have a Dishka, a couple LMGs and assault rifles all around.)

Another thing to consider is that unless a unit not only has the resources to field a horse cavalry contingent but to also equip each trooper with a couple remounts, then the cavalry troopers are going to doing a lot of walking, day to day, to keep their horses from getting fried. (Or their parent unit might seize any and all horse trailers they could find, or fabricate the same, to give strategic/operational mobility to horse cavalry units that would then rely on their horses for tactical mobility.)

For some ideas on how modernish horse cavalry worked, it's worth noting that the Rhodesians, the colonial Portuguese, and the South Africans all used horse cavalry units in COIN ops in Africa from the 60s into the 80s (and with generally good results).

It is one of the things that I think many people have over looked. Of units actually moving Horse Cavalry over distance via vehicle and trailer. Much like they do with Armor that has to move from time to time, to save on the wear and tear of the AFV.

I think one thing we can generally agree upon is that the cavalry would be more or less used as dragoon/mounted infantry fashion.

[Legbreaker]

There's really no other way to do it on a modern battlefield with firearms.
Even 100+ years ago the soldiers needed to dismount in the face of anything beyond weak resistance.

[Mohoender]

Even during the russian civil war, were they used as such with rare exception when attacking lightly defended rear positions.

And the Poles charging nazi tank is an urban legend.

[dragoon500ly]

Even in the old glory days of the horse cavalry, there was a lot of marching on foot. A typical day of movement would start with a fast walk for the first hour, followed by a 15-min break to let the horses catch thier breath while the riders checked loads (even as little as 2-3 pounds extra on one side can injure a horse!) and checked girths.

Second hour might be done at a slow canter, just to get the horses muscles working, followed by another short halt to check loads.

Third hour might start with the horses being led at a military pace, followed by another halt and another hour at a fast walk.

Noon would see the horses unsaddled (to allow their backs to dry), a feeding of a small ration of grain and then allowed to graze for an hour. Then back into the saddle to repeat the cycle of walk, trot, march, walk. The cavalry would sometimes through in a fast canter for an hour to make up time, but by using this pattern, the cavalry can cover about 40 miles a day.

The key to all of this is to insure that the horses get plenty of grain and grazing and clean water. Now you see why when armies depended on horses that campaigns were normally fought in the summer/fall seasons.

While grain is essential, the US Cavalry also used an old Native American trick to get a little extra oomph out of their horses. They fed them meat.

Yes, meat. And yes, I am well aware that horses do not eat meat, exactly. What was done was to make up little balls of dried meat (no larger than your thumb), no more than a handful of pellets to a pound of grain and let the horses eat. It was never intended for long term use, but when speed was essential....it helped give the animal extra energy.

[James Langham]

Thanks for all the useful info guys. I have incorporated a lot of the ideas above and expanded the article (which now includes bicycle cavalry). As I'm having problems uploading here's a link to the file:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15402829/TW2000%20cavalry%2028-04-11.pdf

As ever feedback welcome.

If anyone can find photos of:

1. A towed Pact weapon team

2. Pact troops on bicycles

please can you either upload or let me know the source.

Thanks

[Abbott Shaull]

The Soviets would probably expand their Cavalry units into Divisions, (Brings back Corps (OMG)), and Armies to be use for internal security much like the Germans used it Cavalry Division on the Eastern Front. By 1998 I can see more and more of these units being used in front line areas due to the lack of replacement vehicle in many of the Armor and Mechanized Division as they start merging the units.

I for one never bought into the fact that so few Divisions had be merged with other units or disbanded to bring other units up. Also I see the Soviets reverting back Brigades and Corps for Tanks and Mechanized forces after Early 1997 due to losses they had suffered on both Fronts and bring in pure Infantry (Rifle) Division and Armies back into style with towed artillery in support of these unit to hold the front, keeping the Tank, Mechanized, and Cavalry Brigades and Corps for here they plan on striking for their break through much like how they fought WWII against the Germans.

Just some thoughts on the Pact side. Also it was interesting that Hungary, and many of the the Pact member to the South rarely had few of the Tank Divisions and Heavily Motorized Divisions and even Hungary had revert their Divisions into Brigades before the end of the Cold War.

On the NATO side, by the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, very few nations other the US, UK, France, and Germany had anything that represented a Divisional size level organization except on paper. Even the the French and the UK Divisions had been argued to be little more reinforce Brigades Groups depending on who article you were reading.

As for Lancers Polish had tradition going back to WWII even if it was part truth and forklore of taking on German Armor Cars. Another place I would think a lancers would be seen in PA State Guard, they had during the Civil War several Regiments that had carried Lances, they weren't used much, but like Polish Cavalry of WWII, it help make the unit meld into effective unit.

Like I said after late 1998, I can see more and more units on NATO going to find and build a horse mounted units. Even units fighting in South West in the US will start to converting units to horse mounted. In all cases they would operate as a mixture of Mounted Infantry in that they fight dismounted with limited support weapons, and traditional Cavalry mission of eyes and ears of their parent unit. In many, cases these units would go out and find enemy position and keep an eye on them while all along trying to to get spotted themselves. I see more US units being converted due to the non-existent supply chain by 1998.

The only reason I don't see many of the US Division being merge with other is influx of cannon flodder into each Division own Infantry Replacement Depot from other service members being pushed into them and limited local recruiting.

Just some thoughts...

[Legbreaker]

As has been mentioned before, yes it's good practise to try merging under strength units in the absence of reinforcements, however there are three very important requirements to meet before this can take place.
Time, Opportunity, and Fuel.
Without all three of these factors being available in plenty, it's just not possible.

[Abbott Shaull]

With the Soviet operation system it wasn't much about opportunity or time. Fuel would be limited factor too.

OT I guess the Osama Bin Laden is dead...and the US has the body...WOW.

Back to it: In the way the Soviets operations are carried out you get supplied once before you leave for offensive or if you on the front line of defensive. During Offensive Operations once a unit is spent another unit is pushed through it to take up the offensive. Behind the next echelon is another one to take over. Behind all echelon is enough transportation and supply units and maintenance units. The supply bring up ammo and fuel, maintenance fixing what ever they need to rebuild units that have been passed.

If there isn't enough troops and equipment left in these units will be merged with the remain of the units they had previous passed through or those that had just passed through them when the next Echelon has moved to forward edge of battle. So for Soviet it would be second nature, especially considering their involvement in China for up to Year before fighting in Europe started.

[Legbreaker]

We know units were stripped of equipment which was then transferred to other units. My guess is those receiving units were on the front line (or near to it) at the time.
We also know by looking at the SOV 10th TD that personnel were also stripped, leaving little more than a cadre of officers and NCOs which were supposed to absorb and train several thousand Kazakh conscripts. Many of these deserted even before reaching the 10th with more disappearing soon after. By Winter of 2000 only a few dozen were left.
I'd imagine many units were treated similarly during the course of the war.

[Brother in Arms]

I think this thread should be made into two topics horse cavalry and bike cavalry...because they are two very different things and here is why.

Horse mounted Cav can fight both mounted and dismounted. I doubt that bike Cav could actually fight while mounted. I have never tried to fire a rifle or carbine while on a bike but I don't think I could do it.


I believe bikes would be used for general transportation but more importantly as vehicles for highly mobilized scout and reconaisance troops. Given that a relatively fit bicyclist can travel a great distance on good paved roads and much more quickly than men on foot its the perfect T2k solution to the problem, Its also low cost and fairly simple.

Bike troops would have to travel as light as possible to keep there movement rate up and I think they would be trying to avoid a fight if possible but be able to defend themselves if need be.

heres an idea for some kit for a NATO Recon Bicylist:

1.mountain bike
1.small hand pump mounted to frame
2.replacement inner tubes wrapped around seat post
1.small tool kit mounted to handle bars

1 Helmet
1.Soft cap or Boonie hat
2.Undershirts
1.shorts
1.pants
1.Jacket
3.pairs of socks
1.pair boots (or civillian sneakers)
1. pair light gloves

1.poncho
1.liner
4.1 qaurt canteens or large bladder canteen
1.web gear or load bearing vest
6.30 round STANAG magazines
180. rounds of 5.56x45mm
1.M4 or CAR-15
1.pair of binoculars or spotting scope(if available)
1.small note book and pencil
1.pocket knife or multi tool
1.small roll of 100MPH tape
1.small roll 50 feet parachute cord
1. small rucksack

thats all I can think of for now but thats to get the creative juices flowing...I can definitly picture these guys crusing the countryside of europe.

Brother in Arms

[James Langham]

I think this thread should be made into two topics horse cavalry and bike cavalry...because they are two very different things and here is why.

Horse mounted Cav can fight both mounted and dismounted. I doubt that bike Cav could actually fight while mounted. I have never tried to fire a rifle or carbine while on a bike but I don't think I could do it.


I believe bikes would be used for general transportation but more importantly as vehicles for highly mobilized scout and reconaisance troops. Given that a relatively fit bicyclist can travel a great distance on good paved roads and much more quickly than men on foot its the perfect T2k solution to the problem, Its also low cost and fairly simple.

Bike troops would have to travel as light as possible to keep there movement rate up and I think they would be trying to avoid a fight if possible but be able to defend themselves if need be.

heres an idea for some kit for a NATO Recon Bicylist:

1.mountain bike
1.small hand pump mounted to frame
2.replacement inner tubes wrapped around seat post
1.small tool kit mounted to handle bars

1 Helmet
1.Soft cap or Boonie hat
2.Undershirts
1.shorts
1.pants
1.Jacket
3.pairs of socks
1.pair boots (or civillian sneakers)
1. pair light gloves

1.poncho
1.liner
4.1 qaurt canteens or large bladder canteen
1.web gear or load bearing vest
6.30 round STANAG magazines
180. rounds of 5.56x45mm
1.M4 or CAR-15
1.pair of binoculars or spotting scope(if available)
1.small note book and pencil
1.pocket knife or multi tool
1.small roll of 100MPH tape
1.small roll 50 feet parachute cord
1. small rucksack

thats all I can think of for now but thats to get the creative juices flowing...I can definitly picture these guys crusing the countryside of europe.

Brother in Arms

I agree that the two are quite different, however in an operational as opposed to tactical role their uses would be very similar.

Regarding kit, I think that would be an ideal but by the time cavalry and bicycle infantry are in widespread use the ability to supply them would be starting to fail. I'm also not as convinced on the shorter rifle (excepting bull-pups), I would be looking at longer ranged weapons as I can see them being used a lot for sniping. Perhaps working in pairs, one with a long range bolt action rifle, the other with an SMG for close protection.

[Arrissen]

I'm reading a book called Horse Soldiers at the moment about US Special Forces in Afganistan who worked with the Northern Alliance, on horses! A fascinating story so far...

[James Langham]

I'm reading a book called Horse Soldiers at the moment about US Special Forces in Afganistan who worked with the Northern Alliance, on horses! A fascinating story so far...

If you find any useful bits please let me know.

[Arrissen]

Will do, no problem. I'm only half way through and it already has a bit of a T2K feel to it. It's nuts. I can't put it down.

[James Langham]

Will do, no problem. I'm only half way through and it already has a bit of a T2K feel to it. It's nuts. I can't put it down.


Sounds more fun than all the bits on chemical warfare I'm reading up on (guess the next article I'm writing!).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Thanks for all the useful info guys. I have incorporated a lot of the ideas above and expanded the article (which now includes bicycle cavalry). As I'm having problems uploading here's a link to the file:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15402829/TW2000%20cavalry%2028-04-11.pdf

As ever feedback welcome.

If anyone can find photos of:

1. A towed Pact weapon team

2. Pact troops on bicycles

please can you either upload or let me know the source.

Thanks

I know this is a late response but here is an interesting picture of Russian troops in a truck towing a mortar
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2008/08/serbia_think_of_kosovo_in_geor.html

Also, you may find the following useful for other images: -
Russian forces in Chechnya
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?31866-Atypical-view-on-Russian-Forces-in-Chechnya-(UPDATED)
Another MilPhotos thread, about Cold War era WarPac ground forces
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?101350-Warsaw-pact-ground-troops-cold-war-era
Gepard SPAAG in Romanian service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_Gepard_tank.jpg
A Harpoon wargame website with country lists for equipment, pages usually have at least one photo of the equipment in question
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/Encyclopedia/List_bycountry.aspx

[James Langham]

I know this is a late response but here is an interesting picture of Russian troops in a truck towing a mortar
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2008/08/serbia_think_of_kosovo_in_geor.html

Also, you may find the following useful for other images: -
Russian forces in Chechnya
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?31866-Atypical-view-on-Russian-Forces-in-Chechnya-(UPDATED)
Another MilPhotos thread, about Cold War era WarPac ground forces
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?101350-Warsaw-pact-ground-troops-cold-war-era
Gepard SPAAG in Romanian service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_Gepard_tank.jpg
A Harpoon wargame website with country lists for equipment, pages usually have at least one photo of the equipment in question
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/Encyclopedia/List_bycountry.aspx

I should have specified horse towed... glad I didn't though some of those pics are ideal for afew of the things I am working on.

Much appreciated

[headquarters]

This is a tried and tested concept and was used quite a lot by different armies in the interwar years and in the years after WWII. It has also been used by several smaller armies in modern days - for instance by the LTTE - Tamil Tigers. I am sure it could be used for recce, but I dont know many recce guys that would like to pedal along down a road with their bergens and kit in plain view... But consider that you could get 15 km an hour movement rate on a decent road and that you could bring 25 - 50 kg packs pr man. The VietCong where supplied by bicycles on mud tracks and dirt roads.

A regular trooper marching along could get maybe an average of 5-8 km and hour and bring about 25 kg pack.

A bicycle doesnt need to graze or be watered either - as far as a transport medium goes its simple and efficient.( As long as there is no airpower and arty support is scarce)

I think this thread should be made into two topics horse cavalry and bike cavalry...because they are two very different things and here is why.

Horse mounted Cav can fight both mounted and dismounted. I doubt that bike Cav could actually fight while mounted. I have never tried to fire a rifle or carbine while on a bike but I don't think I could do it.


I believe bikes would be used for general transportation but more importantly as vehicles for highly mobilized scout and reconaisance troops. Given that a relatively fit bicyclist can travel a great distance on good paved roads and much more quickly than men on foot its the perfect T2k solution to the problem, Its also low cost and fairly simple.

Bike troops would have to travel as light as possible to keep there movement rate up and I think they would be trying to avoid a fight if possible but be able to defend themselves if need be.

heres an idea for some kit for a NATO Recon Bicylist:

1.mountain bike
1.small hand pump mounted to frame
2.replacement inner tubes wrapped around seat post
1.small tool kit mounted to handle bars

1 Helmet
1.Soft cap or Boonie hat
2.Undershirts
1.shorts
1.pants
1.Jacket
3.pairs of socks
1.pair boots (or civillian sneakers)
1. pair light gloves

1.poncho
1.liner
4.1 qaurt canteens or large bladder canteen
1.web gear or load bearing vest
6.30 round STANAG magazines
180. rounds of 5.56x45mm
1.M4 or CAR-15
1.pair of binoculars or spotting scope(if available)
1.small note book and pencil
1.pocket knife or multi tool
1.small roll of 100MPH tape
1.small roll 50 feet parachute cord
1. small rucksack

thats all I can think of for now but thats to get the creative juices flowing...I can definitly picture these guys crusing the countryside of europe.

Brother in Arms

[Brother in Arms]

I agree my kit list is the best case scenario. I guess I would say that would be official issue not actual issue :)

as for carrying different weapons. One could set up a sniper or long range shooting unit this way and its not a bad idea especially for urban enviroments.

The reason I chose carbines is they are lighter and easier to carry when slung and would be great when dismounted. But they could be equipped with any small arm that could be readily carried.

[Legbreaker]

FYI, 5kph is an average speed for a fully laden infantryman while patrolling in relatively open terrain (eg. light forest, farmland). That's moving slowly enough to be alert to danger, stopping every so often to check suspicious locations, etc.
On a road march, a fully laden infantryman, at least in Australian service, is expected to complete 15km in little more than 2 hours (a fast walk, with some jogging) and still be ready to fight (ie not dropping from exhaustion).
Special forces are expected to move MUCH further, MUCH faster.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I should have specified horse towed... glad I didn't though some of those pics are ideal for afew of the things I am working on.

Much appreciated

Ahh, well there's certainly not many pics about that show post-war Soviet horse artillery (assuming it continued in service after the war). I have found one wartime pic that is sufficiently hazy that it could pass as a Twilight War image
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oIAhQMTG-dU/TUpSuaesPmI/AAAAAAAAFss/8JVVh34uK78/s1600/Battle-of-kursk-in-pictures-ww2-eastern-ostfront-russian-front-002.jpg
Glad that the other links have something useful, there's plenty of interesting images in the military photos threads but I kind of liked the Romanian Gepard so I just threw it in.

[James Langham]

Slightly expanded version generally giving a few minor details and with a few more pics.

[Raellus]

War Horse, directed by Steven Spielberg. It's not out yet but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRf3SfeMRD4

Could be lend some interesting perspectives on the use of horses in modern warfare. I find the premise interesting in that it implies that civilian-owned horses were requisitioned by the military following the commencement of hostilities.

[James Langham]

War Horse, directed by Steven Spielberg. It's not out yet but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRf3SfeMRD4

Could be lend some interesting perspectives on the use of horses in modern warfare. I find the premise interesting in that it implies that civilian-owned horses were requisitioned by the military following the commencement of hostilities.

Read the book many years ago. Need to catch the stage version, especially as the music is by John Tams,

It was normal for horses to be requisitioned in wartime in a similar way to the way the Soviets planned to requisition the successor, the truck.

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/modern_horse_cavalry_ebooks.html

This might help.

[James Langham]

A few extra details and colour text bits. No substantial changes. With thanks to my friend Neil Grant for extra useful info.

[Webstral]

I like the still from "The Thirteenth Warrior". Good job adding in information about bicycles.

Although Fort Huachuca doesn't have any cavalry per se, equines are widely used in a couple of roles. The Arizona Rangers operating inside SAMAD use horses for patrolling in a manner not entirely dissimilar to COIN operations in southern Africa. They very seldom fight from horseback, although they train to fire rifles at long ranges from horseback and break out of ambushes on horseback (switching to shotguns or sidearms in these instances). Fort Huachuca had a ceremonial cavalry unit prior to the Exchange. These guys go over to the Arizona Rangers to help build the equestrian skills of the new Rangers.

By 2001, horses and mules are also widely used for moving loads away from decent roads. Task force-level anti-marauder operations throughout Arizona typically require the infantry to go to where the enemy has holed up. The terrain surrounding marauder lairs often is selected for its restrictive nature. Sometimes the tanks can't even get there. Horses and mules hauling HE and HESH rockets for the locally-manufactured version of the RPG (as well as other munitions) literally have made the difference between success and failure during many operations in rough terrain. It's not glamorous, but then the logistical jobs seldom are glamorous--just indispensible.

Other government forces in the Southwest make use of horses in a semi-cavalry role. Arizona State Guard 1st Brigade, which is the military arm of the surviving Arizona state government at Flagstaff, uses horses on long-range patrols. The New Mexico state government, which is still hanging on in Santa Fe, uses horses in a similar role. During the ill-fated 1999 offensive by Third Mexican Army, New Mexican forces acted as dragoons. On more than one occasion, when the Mexican column was halted by a roadblock mounted Americans used the off-road mobility of their horses to move to flanking positions. MilGov forces at Cannon AFB in eastern New Mexico also make use of horses for patrolling. USAF SF combine light AFV with horse-mounted troops acting in a dragoon role to respond to security crises.

[James Langham]

A minor update with the style changed to match the other articles.

[bobcat]

the US does have a small breeding program located at Fort Sill. other units may also have informal horsemanship programs. by the 90's its is probable that most US special forces have their own horsemanship and breeding programs to support their operations.

also Mules will likely be used more than horses to transport material. and in some cases men. while they are slower than horses the amount they can move is much higher thereby allowing a mule unit to move more supplies faster than an equally sized horse unit.

[Targan]

James, I just thought of an appendix you could include in your PDF for cavalry operations in Thailand, Vietnam and some other parts of SE Asia and the Sub-Continent - elephant-mounted forces! Not as easy as horses to obtain, train, care for and feed but imagine the shock value. And it's a damn sight harder to shoot a mahout's mount out from under him than a horse cavalryman's.

Granted, it's a limited geographic area that elephant cavalry could be found in, but there have been a few discussions over the years about campaigns set in SE Asia. Imagine a group of foot or truck mounted infantrymen facing down a troop of the Royal Thai Elephant Cataphract Corps! I'd be fetching my brown trousers.

[James Langham]

James, I just thought of an appendix you could include in your PDF for cavalry operations in Thailand, Vietnam and some other parts of SE Asia and the Sub-Continent - elephant-mounted forces! Not as easy as horses to obtain, train, care for and feed but imagine the shock value. And it's a damn sight harder to shoot a mahout's mount out from under him than a horse cavalryman's.

Granted, it's a limited geographic area that elephant cavalry could be found in, but there have been a few discussions over the years about campaigns set in SE Asia. Imagine a group of foot or truck mounted infantrymen facing down a troop of the Royal Thai Elephant Cataphract Corps! I'd be fetching my brown trousers.

Now that will be a mammoth task to research...

[WallShadow]

Now that will be a mammoth task to research...

A mammoth _tusk_ to research?
No doubt you'd come away with a trunk full of data! :D

[Legbreaker]

Now that will be a mammoth task to research...

A mammoth _tusk_ to research?
No doubt you'd come away with a trunk full of data! :D

*SLAP!*
:rolleyes:

[Targan]

A jumbo round of elephant puns? I'm all ears.

[Canadian Army]

James, I just thought of an appendix you could include in your PDF for cavalry operations in Thailand, Vietnam and some other parts of SE Asia and the Sub-Continent - elephant-mounted forces! Not as easy as horses to obtain, train, care for and feed but imagine the shock value. And it's a damn sight harder to shoot a mahout's mount out from under him than a horse cavalryman's.

Granted, it's a limited geographic area that elephant cavalry could be found in, but there have been a few discussions over the years about campaigns set in SE Asia. Imagine a group of foot or truck mounted infantrymen facing down a troop of the Royal Thai Elephant Cataphract Corps! I'd be fetching my brown trousers.

In Challenge #52; Going on Safari it has the following unit:

1st Alternative Cavalry Regiment
This unit was formally organized in May of 2000. What makes it unique is that instead of relying on tanks and APCs for transportation, members of the first rides elephants. The elephants, originally belonging to the Bishop Brothers Circus, were set free in Bellingham, Washington in late 1999 when the crew and performers fled into the countryside. Many of the animals died in the interning months. Roberts found the elephants grazing in a field in April and rounded them up with the aid of an infantry platoon subordinate to the 47th Infantry Division. In May Roberts went to the divisional HQ with his idea for an elephant-borne "cavalry" unit-and was surprised to find his idea readily accepted. Roberts was given command of the 1st Alternative Cavalry Regiment. Including leaders, the regiment consists of 45 members (20 Veteran, 15 Experienced and 10 Novice NPCs).

[Lundgren]

Interesting thread :)

There was a comment about the problem of maintenance of bicycles. But with so many other things, it is when you look at the modern variants. Something like this tend to keep working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_military_bicycle but it is sure not as fun to use as a more modern one. The royal guard regiment was just getting rid of them back in 1992. But there was still a few that we could borrow, to get to a supermarket nearby, if we had some free time.

They were used back in the days for infantry units, and they trained to be towed behind a tractor or a work horse. Basically the same tactics used by our northern brigades to tow infantry on skis during winter.

Might be a good option for infantry units working together with cavalry units.

[headquarters]

We had bicycle mounted dragoons in the 1950s and 1960s in my old regiment. Apparently they were quite effective as they could outpace and outcarry regular marching troops easily.

I can definently see horse/bicycledragoons and cavalry scouts coming back in a T2K setting.

I also think melee weapons like sabres, maces and other sharp and pointy things being reintroduced.To save ammo for one - why shoot an unarmed prisoner when he can be hacked to death without spending a bullet?

As for the cavalry charge I dont know. The LMG was pretty much the end of that as far as I can understand. But if modern automatic weapons were running out of ammo and parts..maybe it could be reintroduced.

Interesting thread :)

There was a comment about the problem of maintenance of bicycles. But with so many other things, it is when you look at the modern variants. Something like this tend to keep working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_military_bicycle but it is sure not as fun to use as a more modern one. The royal guard regiment was just getting rid of them back in 1992. But there was still a few that we could borrow, to get to a supermarket nearby, if we had some free time.

They were used back in the days for infantry units, and they trained to be towed behind a tractor or a work horse. Basically the same tactics used by our northern brigades to tow infantry on skis during winter.

Might be a good option for infantry units working together with cavalry units.

[Tombot]

[QUOTE=headquarters;52759]

I can definently see horse/bicycledragoons and cavalry scouts coming back in a T2K setting.

I also think melee weapons like sabres, maces and other sharp and pointy things being reintroduced.To save ammo for one - why shoot an unarmed prisoner when he can be hacked to death without spending a bullet?


I am absolutely convinced about these two points.
In my games a lot of people carry sharp and pointy things and having a bicycle (even if they just carry their load on it).

[Olefin]

There are a couple of other small cavalry units that you missed in your writeup or at least units still using horses.

You have the Caisson Platoon of the Third Infantry Regiment in DC - dont know if they survived the nuclear attack though.

Connecticut has a very interesting unit - 1st and 2nd Company Governors Horse Guard - its a state militia unit that is an actual cavalry unit that is trained in military tactics and small arms (specifically 9mm and 45's).

They very likely are now being used as for real cavalry, most likely with the addition of carbines or perhaps Uzis to their pistols for arms.

[Medic]

The Finnish non-mechanized infantry (Infantry Brigade type 80) usea bicycles and agricultural tractors as means of conveyance of a great deal of its troops and by the time I was in service, the bicycle marches were very common (not to mention formation drills with bicycles and skis).

I would not mock a bicycle as a means of conveyance, as it saves the military a bunch on resources. You have to feed only the rider and veterinary services are provided by a couple of bicycle mechanics (in Finnish nicknamed as "pumppuluumu", literally a pump prune), who are often the not-so capable soldiers in the Headquarters and Supply Company (when I was in service, the conscript bicycle mechanics and others in support or supply roles were mostly either very much uninterested in serving or the slightly impaired ones - poor sight, cognitive problems etc.).

Last horses in the Finnish Army were sold in late 90'ies. The military slang said, the army horses had "service days on their asses" - they had a registry number shaved on their behinds. Nowadays the Army Dragoon Band is the only unit to use horses, but as far as I know, the horses are privately owned.

[James Langham]

There are a couple of other small cavalry units that you missed in your writeup or at least units still using horses.

You have the Caisson Platoon of the Third Infantry Regiment in DC - dont know if they survived the nuclear attack though.

Connecticut has a very interesting unit - 1st and 2nd Company Governors Horse Guard - its a state militia unit that is an actual cavalry unit that is trained in military tactics and small arms (specifically 9mm and 45's).

They very likely are now being used as for real cavalry, most likely with the addition of carbines or perhaps Uzis to their pistols for arms.

Useful info thanks.

Any particular reason why Uzis?

[James Langham]

The Finnish non-mechanized infantry (Infantry Brigade type 80) usea bicycles and agricultural tractors as means of conveyance of a great deal of its troops and by the time I was in service, the bicycle marches were very common (not to mention formation drills with bicycles and skis).

I would not mock a bicycle as a means of conveyance, as it saves the military a bunch on resources. You have to feed only the rider and veterinary services are provided by a couple of bicycle mechanics (in Finnish nicknamed as "pumppuluumu", literally a pump prune), who are often the not-so capable soldiers in the Headquarters and Supply Company (when I was in service, the conscript bicycle mechanics and others in support or supply roles were mostly either very much uninterested in serving or the slightly impaired ones - poor sight, cognitive problems etc.).

Last horses in the Finnish Army were sold in late 90'ies. The military slang said, the army horses had "service days on their asses" - they had a registry number shaved on their behinds. Nowadays the Army Dragoon Band is the only unit to use horses, but as far as I know, the horses are privately owned.

Again really useful info, I am far from being an expert on the Finnish forces but will add some detail in the next rewrite.

[James Langham]

Interesting thread :)

There was a comment about the problem of maintenance of bicycles. But with so many other things, it is when you look at the modern variants. Something like this tend to keep working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_military_bicycle but it is sure not as fun to use as a more modern one. The royal guard regiment was just getting rid of them back in 1992. But there was still a few that we could borrow, to get to a supermarket nearby, if we had some free time.

They were used back in the days for infantry units, and they trained to be towed behind a tractor or a work horse. Basically the same tactics used by our northern brigades to tow infantry on skis during winter.

Might be a good option for infantry units working together with cavalry units.

Nice bit of technical detail, thanks.

[Medic]

Again really useful info, I am far from being an expert on the Finnish forces but will add some detail in the next rewrite.

I don't claim to be an expert, but having served in the said Army, I have some useful knowledge about it. If you wonder about anything, drop me a PM and I'll see what I can dig up.

[Olefin]

"Useful info thanks.

Any particular reason why Uzis? "

Was thinking of something small that they could carry easily with a unit that was trained only on pistols. From the research I have been able to do they didnt have the unit trained on rifles or larger weapons. However something like the smaller Uzi's you would think would fit into such a unit pretty easily and offer more firepower than just the pistols they were trained with.

[Medic]

An MP-5 would be a highly more likely weapon for such an unit than Uzi, being in activeuse by the U.S. armed forces as well as a number police departments. As for ease of use, I'm pretty sure the men would have been trained with a rifle in basic training, so the MP-5 would be a logical choice for a longarm, if not carbines or assault rifles.

[Olefin]

An MP-5 is a great idea for them Medic, especially as they are considered almost a police unit as they are currently constituted - so once things started going bad and pistols werent enough firepower adding that to their weapons makes a lot of sense.

Thank you!

[Medic]

Don't mention.

Of course, another choice might be the old M1 and M2 series carbine. The military would probably have them in some cold storage in numbers...

[Olefin]

Food for thought by the way for those who think that horses may be in short supply due to "starving hordes" in the US

the US general public sees horses as either pets, work animals or race horses - but one thing they dont see them as is food - consumption of horsemeat in the US is very very low among Americans as compared to other places in the world - it would be the equivalent of eating the family dog or cat for most Americans

also by the time starvation really began to take its toll in the US it was late 1998 to early 1999 - by which time MilGov and CivGov would have known that they had to have horses as they saw gas stocks decline and disappear in many places - thus they would have grabbed as many as possible and guarded them

and Last Submarine notwithstanding most military units are very well placed to stop starving hordes from grabbing vital military items - thats why they get issued machine guns, mines and Claymores - and if people say that they would stand aside or not open fire - after the first few executions by firing squad or hangings for such behavior they would definitely follow orders and open fire.

Plus there are a lot of farmers who know how vital horses would be without gasoline - and they would be doing just as much shooting to protect those horses as the military would be doing.

Take down a starving group of people to save an old cow or some piglets - no. Take down a starving group of people to save your breeding stock or the horses that mean you plant enough to feed yourself and your family versus starve - most farmers would only pause long enough to reload in a situation like that. And given how long the US was at war by late 1997 I would think many farmers would have a lot of ammo and rifles ready and available.

[Legbreaker]

Which will be eaten first - horses, or rats?
My money is on the former.

[Olefin]

There wont be anyone defending the rats with shotguns, rifles and pistols or in the case of the US military, machine guns and Claymores and mines.

There will be plenty of defenders for the horses.

I will put my money on the rats going first.

[Legbreaker]

And that'll be the same even when those "defenders" are the ones starving will it?

[Panther Al]

*sigh*

You two. Chill. Seriously.


Leg: Here in the states, horses are simply not seen as food. So while I don't say that rats will be on the menu before horses, by and large, most anyone would do anything they can to make sure they don't have look at a Horse and think, "Mmm.. Big Mac."

Olefin: Leg is right, when it comes down to Eat Trigger, or starve, Trigger is about to be a Big Mac. Even though it would be piss poor planning as to long term survival, the short term will more often than not be viewed as somewhat more important.

[Legbreaker]

Exactly! Of course they're not JUST food, but when it's eat your horse or die of starvation, the choice is obvious.
And there's plenty of historical examples of just this very thing happening.

My mother bred horses. I have a lot of experience with working with them and know very well the personal bond which can develop - each and every animal had it's own name and certainly their own personality. Some I would absolutely HATE to have to slaughter even if it my life on the line, others, "pass me the knife, that bitch has got to DIE!" ;)

[Olefin]

horses are going to be seen as military assets by MilGov and CivGov - especially one the Mexicans invade using cavalry units and once they are short on gas to get things like guns and ammo up to their forces

and no military will sit idly by and watch their assets get destroyed in the name of feeding civilians - so will there be a reduction because some willl be used for food by desperate people or die from radiation or from starvation themselves - for sure

but reduced so far that their arent enough to be used by the military for both mounts and for hauling guns and supplies - not gonna happen - maybe if you only had a couple million - but not with the sheer number of horses there are in the US - which doesnt mean that maybe by 2001 we are down from 6.5 million to one million or so horses - but the ones that are left are going to be very well guarded and not to be used as food by then

plus in this case we have canon to back up that statement - the availability of horses for the Texas module shows that they do exist and exist in good numbers - I doubt if there was a huge shortage that the characters would have been given horses so easily and told they could keep them when they were done - that alone shows that horses are still relatively plentiful by early 2001, at least in Texas

[Olefin]

James,

One thing you might want to look at is cavalry units for Africa - there are actually quite a lot of horses in Ethiopia for one (its in the top ten countries of horses, in 1997 its population of horses was well over a million) and that country had a tradition of using cavalry in its military, especially in very hard to reach areas.

I am in the process of creating a cavalry unit for use in Kenya where there are about 2000 horses that are used mostly for racing, shows, and safaris on horseback. It would be mostly a white Kenyan unit since horse ownership is concentrated among them as a lasting vestige of colonialism there (there are about 32,000 White Kenyans who stayed after it declared independence and are citizens of the country). I will send it to you if you like once I have it done - its a single battalion, basically more like mounted infantry than pure cavalry.

[Medic]

With horses you must bear in mind, untrained to war, they are very unpredictable if someone starts shooting around them. In fact, they are very unpredictable with someone walking by in a rain poncho or with a flag. Horses shy away from almost anything they have not been exactly trained to tolerate - I've seen an actor take a rather nasty tumble, when he fired a musket pistol while sitting on a horse, who had not been accustomized in loud noises.

So, yes, mounted infantry in the old Dragoon-style would be more likely than actual Cavalry style, fighting from horseback. Of course, you might be able to muster some horses from history re-enactors, who might have theirs trained for jousting and have a platoon of lancers. :p

[Olefin]

The history re-enactors is probably exactly where you would get a lot of the cavalry units that MilGov and CivGov would be raising. There is an article in Challenge Magazine number 42 that has exactly that as the basis for a cav unit

"1st Cavalry Squadron, NJSM: Seventy-five horsemounted troopers armed with FN-FALs, four M79s, and two M60s. They also carry a miscellaneous collection of sabers looted from a local museum. This unit was initially formed around a cadre of a half-dozen civil war reenactment enthusiasts, and some of the troopers use their reenactment uniforms and equipment. "

Sounds like what you have is a unit that had some horses initially in it that were accustomed to the sounds of gunfire as part of the re-enactment and the re-enactors helped train the other horses afterward.

By the way its not just gunfire that makes horses skittish. Ever seen the Braveheart scene where Gibson is giving his freedom speech before the Battle of Stirling? If you notice every time he yells the horse gets skittish and starts moving. Him moving back and forth as he made the speech wasnt written into the movie, it was the horse reacting to the yelling.

By the way that canon article (A Rock in Troubled Waters) shows that horses are definitely still available in 2001 and that they are being bred for government use - from the article

"Port Elizabeth: The 150 people inhabiting Port Elizabeth make their living raising and selling horses. They live in a cluster of buildings near Route 47." and
"The survivors are relatively prosperous by Twilight: 2000 standards-they farm enough to eat well and even export a bit.
Dietary protein comes from fish and chicken. Goats, sheep,cattle and horses are raised primarily for government consumption.
Salvage and re-manufacturing are thriving cottage industries, and pay the taxes in the Milgov protected areas."

[rcaf_777]

Don't mention.

Of course, another choice might be the old M1 and M2 series carbine. The military would probably have them in some cold storage in numbers...

What about the MAC-10 or MAC-11?

[Medic]

What about the MAC-10 or MAC-11?

I assume, the U.S. military diesn't really have those in storage - the old M-3 'Grease Gun' might be another thing, but I beieve, even those have been removed from storage. This is, however, simply a gut feeling - I can not confirm this in any way.

[Olefin]

Actually the Grease Gun is a great idea - it was used until the mid 90's by some armored vehicle crews and truck drivers. There is a very good chance that it could be in the state armory.

And it would make a great gun to be carried by cavalry men - short,light, easy to handle and pretty good level of firepower for a weapon

thanks rcaf_777!

[simonmark6]

M1 carbines would be good, plus you could dress the cavalry up in gorilla suits for that true post-apocalyptic feeling.

[Olefin]

Ten points to Simon for the Planet of the Apes reference!!!!

[Medic]

Okay, I can understand why my English-teacher on grades 8-9 never learned my first name (which was, by that time, a rare one - nowadays there's a huge load of kids by the same name roaming around), but mistaking me for rcaf...:rolleyes:

Yes, I had the recollection, the U.S. Army had M3s or rather M3A1s in use for armor crews pretty close to the Twilight timeline, but wasn't entirely sure. I believe, a combination of M1 and M2 series carbines and M3 series submachineguns would be pretty much probable.

[Olefin]

Oh jeez - sorry Medic - ok that is three body points of damage for me due to reading a post and responding to it while being on the phone at the same time and not paying proper attention along with loss of one clip of M16 ammo and a grenade of your choice as a fine

[Medic]

I'll let it slide this time. :p

[bobcat]

most the greaseguns are in NG armories. however i know people who carried them as late as OEF3. so getting those to a cav unit would make sense.

[HorseSoldier]

The machine gun killed horse cavalry before the semi-automatic and automatic rifle had a chance to (and really the rifled musket and earliest cartridge firing repeaters had horse cavalry on life support well before that). In T2K, horse cavalry are going to be dragoons, not true cavalry, and do their fighting on foot in all but the most permissive environments (note: Absolutely nowhere in the US would be considered a permissive environment. The UK or other places where firearms aren't very plentiful, maybe).

The ideal weapon for CONUS horse cavalry units would probably the M4, but the M16 would be entirely workable and the M16EZ would get the job done. No reason or need for anything more compact than that, and issuing them SMGs would actually tend to be contraindicated by role -- horse cavalry is an asset for patrolling and reconnoitering relatively open terrain where they have a mobility advantage. Even if they are ordered only to fight in the defense and in a pinch, they'd still be wanting weapons that let them engage fully across the 0-3 or 400 meters riflemen can credibly own without specialized equipment or an incredibly obliging enemy.

[Legbreaker]

I agree with that. In the relatively rare instances where the US has cavalry (We know the 5th ID had a handful for example) longer ranged weapons and light machineguns are the more practical weaponry with perhaps a few mortars, AGLs and HMGs towed on carriages.
Since logistical support (particularly carrying capacity compared to trucks) would be limited, I see cavalry having more in common equipment wise with paratroopers than just about any other troop type. You might even see Paratroop units converted before any others (all nationalities) because of this very fact - swapping one mode of transport for another.

[James Langham]

I agree with that. In the relatively rare instances where the US has cavalry (We know the 5th ID had a handful for example) longer ranged weapons and light machineguns are the more practical weaponry with perhaps a few mortars, AGLs and HMGs towed on carriages.
Since logistical support (particularly carrying capacity compared to trucks) would be limited, I see cavalry having more in common equipment wise with paratroopers than just about any other troop type. You might even see Paratroop units converted before any others (all nationalities) because of this very fact - swapping one mode of transport for another.

I have the 82nd in Operation Pegasus in Iran moving south on horses.

The current UK news about horse meat being in beef burgers is somehow somewhat ironic given the thread recently. It did give one nice fact though, horse tastes like a less fatty and slightly sweeter beef.

I have avoided Kenya as my version is different to the great write up that has been presented here.

There will be a rewrite shortly with extras....

[simonmark6]

Depends on the horse, one bred for eating is like less fatty and sweeter beef, but those eaten after work are much stringier and have a gamier flavour. Best hang it a bit then. On the whole though, the beef analogy is a good one. Like rabbit though it's high in protein and low in calories (relatively) there are much better foods if you're starving, but when you're hungry you take what you get.

[Olefin]

You might see the Grease Guns with the cavalry heavy weapons units - i.e. if you are manning a machine gun or mortar, if it gets down to engaging the enemy with an infantry weapon its usually when they get so close that you cant engage them with the heavy weapon - and a SMG is great for that

the unit I am putting together for Kenya is a Kenyan unit and not a US one - i.e. made up of Kenyan horsemen and women who equip a horsed cavalry "regiment" (but not even close in terms of numbers) using horses from Kenya or Ethiopia

[James Langham]

You might see the Grease Guns with the cavalry heavy weapons units - i.e. if you are manning a machine gun or mortar, if it gets down to engaging the enemy with an infantry weapon its usually when they get so close that you cant engage them with the heavy weapon - and a SMG is great for that

the unit I am putting together for Kenya is a Kenyan unit and not a US one - i.e. made up of Kenyan horsemen and women who equip a horsed cavalry "regiment" (but not even close in terms of numbers) using horses from Kenya or Ethiopia

Bear in mind the weight of an M3A1 with ammo, you are actually better with an M16! I would say the ideal weapon for weapon crews would be the M2 Carbine.

Quite happy to look at non-US units.

[Olefin]

Will send you the info I have on the Kenyan unit soon - almost have it done.

[HorseSoldier]

Depends on the horse, one bred for eating is like less fatty and sweeter beef, but those eaten after work are much stringier and have a gamier flavour. Best hang it a bit then. On the whole though, the beef analogy is a good one. Like rabbit though it's high in protein and low in calories (relatively) there are much better foods if you're starving, but when you're hungry you take what you get.

Horse isn't so lean that rabbit fever would be a problem. I haven't followed all the ins and outs on the debate, but there is a lot of archaeological evidence supporting the fact that horses started out as a domesticated food animal and only later turned into a riding animal. Part of their appeal was that on the Eurasian steppe where domestication started they are much better at self-sustaining (and providing a food source) during winter months than cattle.

[Medic]

Not really on but neither really off topic, the Swedes actually considered using the moose as mounts in the 17th century. It never really took off, though they did domesticate some of them as far as I know. Bigger than a horse, moves well in swampy terrain, has antlers - I can really see the thought behind the idea, even if it was not successful. :p

[James Langham]

Not really on but neither really off topic, the Swedes actually considered using the moose as mounts in the 17th century. It never really took off, though they did domesticate some of them as far as I know. Bigger than a horse, moves well in swampy terrain, has antlers - I can really see the thought behind the idea, even if it was not successful. :p

Seems to have been used by Wood Elves though - see the film version of "The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey"

Interesting trivia from the latest rewrite research:

* Switzerland still had carrier pigeons in service in 1995

* Israel used pack llamas in Lebanon

[James Langham]

Latest version...with a thousand elephants!!!! (Apologies to the Pratchett fans out there).

Sorry the pics are so low res but file size limits apply.

[Targan]

Great additions! Nice work, James.

[Medic]

Fine work, James!

Kind of made me remember what happened to my first military bicycle during the basic training. We were about to head off to an exercise and my bike was outside the barracks, when a XA-185 Pasi APC driver decided to back his vehicle up a bit. You could, with some imagination and good will, recognize it having once been a bicycle...:D

[Olefin]

From what I am putting together on Kenya (which may actually be done soon) -

1st Kenyan Mounted Cavalry Regiment

The Regiment was organized in 1998, starting with a cadre of fifty horsemen and two hundred horses that had been used previously for horse safari tours, organized by a retired veteran of the Household Mounted Cavalry Regiment of the British Army who immigrated to Kenya in 1988 after twenty years service along with twelve White Kenyans who had formed a Victorian Cavalry re-enactor group in early 1992.

While originally the idea of a cavalry unit was not supported by the Kenyan military and government, as petroleum supplies were restricted after the air and nuclear strikes on the Saudi and Iranian oil fields they changed their minds and gave them the resources and equipment needed to begin forming a regimental size cavalry force.

Its personnel are all trained horsemen and women, drawn mostly from the white population of Kenya who traditionally owned almost all the horses in the country. Of Kenya’s population of 2000 horses in 1997, some 1400 remain. In addition another 5000 horses have been obtained from Ethiopia in trade for gasoline, ammunition and other items traded to the warlords fighting the central government there.

Eventually some 500 horses were allocated to the regiment to be fully trained as war horses, with enough being trained by mid 1999 for the regiment to be considered ready for combat.

At full strength, the regiment consists of a headquarters squadron, three cavalry squadrons, and a horse drawn heavy weapons squadron, with a total of ten officers and 242 enlisted personnel. Enlisted privates are referred to as Troopers, while NCO’s are either a Lance Corporal of Horse (Corporal), a Corporal of Horse (Sergeant), or a Corporal Major of Horse (Sergeant Major). Officer ranks follow normal Kenyan practice.

It is modeled on the British Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, with each cavalry squadron consisting of two divisions, each of one officer and twenty four enlisted personnel, while the headquarters squadron consists of only one division. The heavy weapons squadron consists of two divisions, one being of one officer and eighteen enlisted men with machine guns, the other division being of one officer and twenty enlisted men armed with mortars, with specially built gun caissons used for transporting the weapons and ammunition.

In addition, it is supported by a training squadron of one officer and thirty six enlisted men who are tasked as follows:
• Eighteen soldiers who care for the horses themselves, including eight trained blacksmiths who specialize in shoeing the horses
• Six soldiers who do maintenance and upkeep on the tack and gear for the regiment
• Twelve soldiers responsible for training new riders and breaking in new horses

Each squadron has one trained combat medic and each division has one man designated as the cook.

As of April 1, 2001 its current strength is 10 officers and 198 enlisted, with another 50 men in training, with a total of 384 horses available for the regiment after losses due to combat and illness from the last two years. Of these, forty horses were designated as breeders with the rest being available for use.

Weapons

The HQ and Cavalry squadrons of the Regiment are armed with 9mm Browning pistols and G3 rifles, while the heavy weapons squadron is armed with the Sterling MkIV instead of the G3. In addition, for additional firepower each cavalry division has a Bren light machine gunner (instead of the G3) and two M79 grenade launchers.

The heavy weapons squadron is armed with three M2HB MG and two L-16 81mm mortars. In addition it has the only dedicated anti-tank weapons in the regiment, two captured RPG-7 launchers and four missiles.

Tactics

The Regiment fights as dragoons, using the horses for transport but not taking them into battle if it can be helped. On at least three occasions, due to ambushes, they have been forced to fight from horseback, with serious losses in horses and men each time. When in combat, one man from each six is tasked to handle the horses while the rest deploy to fight.

Usually the Regiment deploys without the heavy weapons squadron for patrols, only using that for missions where the heavier firepower will be needed, as the caissons slow them down and have broken down in rough terrain before.

The unit has proven itself to be very effective against many of the irregular forces that are in Kenya and has grudgingly earned the respect of those who originally thought there was no place left anymore for cavalry in the modern world.

[James Langham2]

As ever still a work in progress with much more to be added... also as ever feedback welcome.

Apache 6 I have taken your work on the 2nd Tennesse Cavalry and added a bit, hope you are OK with that - I have included you as their official historian and commander (although just using the callsign name).

[Apache6]

James Langham: I just saw your post. Thanks for including the 2nd Tennessee Cavalry in your Twilight 2000 Cavalry write up. Like the Ten Gun, name.

[Raellus]

Spartan-177 shared this pic. His friend took it recently in the Netherlands.

[therantingsavant]

Shamelessly adding a link to my follow up Horsemen of the Apocalypse (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=5865) thread here that references this original thread as it's inspiration and resource! :)