Cavalry in Twilight 2000

[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.

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

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.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.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.

[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]

Originally Posted by irishboy

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)

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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.

Mo

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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

[Mohoender]

Thanks, it worked.