Cavalry in Twilight 2000

[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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by James Langham

* 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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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...