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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Mo,

Try this link:

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

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

Tony

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Revised article
 

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/TW2...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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

Kit list
 

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.

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.

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!).

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...o_in_geor.html

Also, you may find the following useful for other images: -
Russian forces in Chechnya
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...chnya-(UPDATED)
Another MilPhotos thread, about Cold War era WarPac ground forces
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...s-cold-war-era
Gepard SPAAG in Romanian service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...epard_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/Ency...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

cyclist troops
 

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)