Cavalry in Twilight 2000

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Panther Al

...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.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by 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.


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.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

[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/u...ent/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.

[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.

[Matt W]

Bicycle cavalry in WW1


http://www.canada.com/story_print.ht...8ee33&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

[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.

[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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.