Germ,an Artillery Practices

[Hans]

I'd agree a truck or tractor is superior but horses could and did do their share. In a few special areas they were/are still superior. In rugged terrain they could do better than the older motor vehicles or areas where little if any organized support was available. One reason they remained in use is:

Horses could and did take a lot of damage and still keep going. Yes the European horses couldn't take the Russian winter - of course a lot of the Russian horses couldn't either!

Lack of fuel and people to maintain motor vehicles

While lots of people had "horse" knowledge was another feature.

For a short time before WII the US army played around with mixed units that used motorized horse transport!

Regards

[Andreas]

Hans, I agree on all of that. IMO one of the bigger mistakes the Germans made was to not develop a 4x4 carriage, and fully tracking their Panzer division supply columns, as recommended by Guderian.

[Terence]

Thanks Comrades. This information is wonderful. I really appreciate all the time you took to help me out.

I'm working on a smallish scenario involving -- you guessed it -- a German artillery battery.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

While the truck will run again once the temperature goes up...<hr></blockquote>

Depending on whether or not the block has cracked. The Germans had a hellacious time keeping their trucks going, especially the first year in Russia, mainly due to the diversity of types and difficulty of keeping adequate spares on hand. But the first winter, most of them lacked anti-freeze and died a cold death. Many of these had to be abandoned before the advancing Soviet army and so could not be recovered and repaired, even assuming that would have been otherwise possible.

Michael

[Bullethead]

On the subject of horses vs. motor vehicles for towing arty, it was realized early in the 20th Century that over-all, vehicles were far superior. This quote is from Fred Crimson's US Military Tracked Vehicles, page 145, in the intro to the section on Gun Motor Carriages. The internal quotes and cites are from the US Ordnance Department's Handbook of Ordnance Data, published in November 1918. The data used in this handbook was based on careful studies of the AEF experience in France:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>... motorizing a 6-inch howitzer regiment would save 1,440 horses, along with the soldiers required to feed, clean, and doctor them. They determined that in ocean transportaion to Europe, one tractor (at 360 cubic feet) was far less of a problem than the 16 heavy draft hourses and 3 riding horses it would replace. The sustenance of the prime movers being compared was also considered: "A horsed regiment of 6-inch howitzers consumes daily 14.7 tons (29,400 pounds) of forage, whether the animals are employed ... or idle. The same regiment ... (when mechanized) ... consumes 4 tons (8,000 pounds) of fuel, oil, and grease in marching 50 miles, which represents a two days' march for a horsed regiment, while little if any fuel or lubricant is consumed when idle."

The studies also noted that tractors were actually more mobile than horses over adverse terrain while pulling artillery weapons, and while horses could offer occasional bursts of speed, the tractor could move along at 7 miles per hour all day. In the area of vulnerability it had become obvious that a shell which exploded nearby could incapacitate or wipe out either a horse team or a tractor, depending on the proximity and the size of the charge. Ordnance felt "... the chances of destruction are about equal ... and therefore this feature may be dropped from discussion." The fact that a tractor could perhaps be repaired or its useful parts applied to the repairs of another tractor was an aspect that the horse could not offer.

Even such seemingly remote aspects as the production of leather entered into the equation: one regiment of heavy Field Artillery needed "... 125 sets of wheel harness and 333 sets of lead harness, the leather for which would make 11,720 pairs of shoes." Tractors were easier to conceal than horses (they stand still and do not make noises) and from the sanitation point of view, the Ordnance Department testily advised: "Animals, dead or alive, under conditions existing at the front, are a source of disease and are highly obnoxious. The tractor cannot create these conditions."<hr></blockquote>

At the time this report was written, horses were being compared to simple crawler tractors, such as Holt's 10 ton Artillery Tractor M1917 and the 2.5 ton Artillery Tractor M1918 by Holt and RIA. These things looked like bulldozers without blades. By the time of WW2, improved technology had made the horse even more obsolete.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Bullethead ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

The Shrapnell that goes through the radiator of the HT has created a nuisance and some repairable damage to the prime mover.

Provided you had the sparepart at hand.

The same Shrapnell tearing a whole in the horse has created a prime mover casualty, and you have to find a new one.

How many more extra motorized vehicles were in a motorized formation ? Also, you could move a gun with a team short of one horse. With the tractor it was either go or no go.

Also, any shrapnell hitting the horse is going to put it out of action, while in a vehicle there are large areas where it does not matter at all.

The German horses must have VERY big if they were as large as tractors. And the tractors could be made to lie down and take cover.

but there are also problems of exhaustion of the beasts

How many trucks and tractors were written off in a year due to wear and tear ? How much more time did it take for the horse to recover than to completely overhaul a tractor ?

speed,

Granted.

cross country mobility for anything larger than a light field gun

Then again a track left by a tractor speeding across the field was more conspicuous than a track left by a horse team.

(ever had a look at the limbers and their wheels?) and whatnot.

Many guns game with separate models of wheels and liber suitable for motorized and horse drawn mode of transport.

There was also the slight problem with the original German horses dying in droves in the Russian winter, because they could not deal with the temperatures (only one source for that, but it does not sound too far fetched).

How many German horses died of exposure in France ?

While the truck will run again once the temperature goes up, the only thing you can do with the dead horse is (b)eat it.

What about a dead battery, cracked block, doors frozen solid, no vision through the windshield, wheel wells frozen solid with dirt and mud ?

Both are equally unspooked by gunfire sounds though, as it seems.

The horse can be acclimatized up to a point, yes. And they learn faster than a tractor to respond to battlefield stimuli on their own.

On balance I take an unarmoured HT over a 12 horse limber anyday, even in the primeval Finnish forest,

I hope you can piss petrol if you wind up too far from your supply source. The horses can at least keep going after that 100km's march (which would be perhaps 20kms as the crow flies) through the wildeness by forraging food from the woods.

where the BMX bandits roam (thanks for that Simon).

What the heck is a BMX ?

On balance I believe the German army would have taken trucks if they had had the choice.

Given the terrain they fought over that would perhaps been better.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

[qb]where the BMX bandits roam (thanks for that Simon).

What the heck is a BMX ?

[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

BMX stands for Bicycle Moto Cross. That in turn is short for off-road motorcycle racing (aka dirt bikes).

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

On the subject of horses vs. motor vehicles for towing arty, it was realized early in the 20th Century that over-all, vehicles were far superior. This quote is from Fred Crimson's US Military Tracked Vehicles, page 145, in the intro to the section on Gun Motor Carriages. The internal quotes and cites are from the US Ordnance Department's Handbook of Ordnance Data, published in November 1918. The data used in this handbook was based on careful studies of the AEF experience in France:

WWI examples make very poor comparisons. Besides, if the findings were relevant for the continental armies they would have phased out the horses from service entirely forthwith. The transportation overseas was indeed a factor. But only for those armies who crossed oceans.

At the time this report was written, horses were being compared to simple crawler tractors, such as Holt's 10 ton Artillery Tractor M1917 and the 2.5 ton Artillery Tractor M1918 by Holt and RIA. These things looked like bulldozers without blades. By the time of WW2, improved technology had made the horse even more obsolete.

Not really. How much of the transportation capacity freed from the transportation of these beasts of burden was taken up by transportation of fuel (as ALL of it had to transported, not many chances for forraging locally) ?

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

The horses can at least keep going after that 100km's march (which would be perhaps 20kms as the crow flies) through the wildeness by forraging food from the woods.<hr></blockquote>

Don't count on getting much work out of them that way though. Pulling heavy loads like artillery requires heap big energy, like you only get from lots of grain in their diet. And if it's winter time, don't count on many of them staying alive for very long on what they can forage in a given area, even if idle.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Besides, if the findings were relevant for the continental armies they would have phased out the horses from service entirely forthwith.<hr></blockquote>

Well, there is the small matter of being able to produce the necessary machinery. All countries able to produce the machines in sufficient quantities made the transition as speedily as their economies would allow, including the Soviet Union who were actually somewhat pioneers in this area.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The transportation overseas was indeed a factor. But only for those armies who crossed oceans.<hr></blockquote>

Transportation is always a problem for all armies that intend to go anywhere. Granted, Continental armies were not normally concerned with marine shipping space, but they all had to think about how much they could move efficiently by rail.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How much of the transportation capacity freed from the transportation of these beasts of burden was taken up by transportation of fuel (as ALL of it had to transported, not many chances for forraging locally) ?<hr></blockquote>

Not much, as the figures that Bullethead quoted should serve to illustrate. Besides, sometimes armies could in fact scrounge POL, though it isn't something they should have counted on (witness the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge). But for instance, the Germans in their dash across northern France in 1940 were occasionally able to refuel their tanks at French filling stations. Rommel frequently ran his army in North Africa on captured fuel.

Michael

[Bullethead]

tero said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Provided you had the sparepart at hand.<hr></blockquote>

It's a lot easier to get spare parts for a machine than for an animal You can also mix and match parts from several wrecked vehicles to make at least one of them functional. You can't do that with animals.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How many more extra motorized vehicles were in a motorized formation ? Also, you could move a gun with a team short of one horse. With the tractor it was either go or no go.<hr></blockquote>

You're missing the point. One tractor replaced a whole team of horses. Thus, a team short 1 horse is analogous to a tractor with the engine not firing on 1 cylinder. Both still function at reduced capacity.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The German horses must have VERY big if they were as large as tractors. And the tractors could be made to lie down and take cover.<hr></blockquote>

Again, the tractor replaces a whole team. How big a target is a team of 16 draft horses, compared to a tractor?

I admit to having as little to do with horses as possible. However, I do know that normally they don't lie down very much--they even sleep standing up. Their normal response to danger is to run away, not hit the deck.

Tractors neither run away nor hit the deck. However, you can at least dig a hole to put them in. Try getting a horse in that

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How many trucks and tractors were written off in a year due to wear and tear ? How much more time did it take for the horse to recover than to completely overhaul a tractor ?<hr></blockquote>

It's a lot easier to break flesh and bone than it is metal--tractors are much less likely to fail than horses under the same level of adverse conditions. And a horse with a broken leg from "wear and tear" over a bad road is not fixable in a militarily practical sense. Hell, they're usually not fixable in a peacetime civilian sense. But the tractor will not even notice the pot hole that breaks the horse's leg.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Then again a track left by a tractor speeding across the field was more conspicuous than a track left by a horse team.<hr></blockquote>

I disagree. Run a team of 16 straining draft horses over soft ground and see how they tear it up.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>What about a dead battery, cracked block, doors frozen solid, no vision through the windshield, wheel wells frozen solid with dirt and mud ?<hr></blockquote>

In such conditions, horses wouldn't be able to move either. But when the thaw finally comes, the tractor could be made to move again. The horses will be corpses.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I hope you can piss petrol if you wind up too far from your supply source. The horses can at least keep going after that 100km's march (which would be perhaps 20kms as the crow flies) through the wildeness by forraging food from the woods.<hr></blockquote>

By and large, there isn't any horse forage in the woods. Horses are creatures of open, grassy plains, not forests. So both horses and tractors would need fuel carried along on such a trip. In which case, the tractor has the advantage by requiring far less supplies over the same distance traveled.

[Bullethead]

tero said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>WWI examples make very poor comparisons.<hr></blockquote>

What makes you say that? Horse technology hasn't changed any since then . Besides, people back then knew a lot more about horses and their military implications than they do now. So if somebody from WW1 says that horses sucked compared to the primitive tractors of that day, I'd believe him.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Besides, if the findings were relevant for the continental armies they would have phased out the horses from service entirely forthwith. The transportation overseas was indeed a factor. But only for those armies who crossed oceans.<hr></blockquote>

The findings were extremely relevant to all armies and all armies took steps to phase out horses. However, you might recall that WW1 was thought at the time to have been the last war, and the whole world was utterly sick of war after that experience, so there was great resistance to spending the fortune it required to re-equip whole armies with motor transport. Especially at a time when military down-sizing was in full swing. And then the Great Depression came along.

Crossing oceans is just the most extreme case of the transport problems. Continental armies have to cross large rivers as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Not really. How much of the transportation capacity freed from the transportation of these beasts of burden was taken up by transportation of fuel (as ALL of it had to transported, not many chances for forraging locally) ?<hr></blockquote>

All the food for the horses had to be transported as well. Think about it. A single regiment of heavy arty required over 1400 horses. If these were turned out to forage, how many acres of grass would it take to ensure they all got full bellies? And if you dispersed the horses so they could feed themselves, how long would it take to get them all back together and hitched up? Plus that's just 1 regiment of arty--what about the rest of the army?

Basically, it was utterly impractical for the huge number of horses that armies required back then to live off the land. So armies had to bring along huge piles of oats and similar compact foods, which they carried in wagons with the other supplies. Which wagons were pulled by yet more horses, which in turn required food of their own.

As I mentioned last time, a horsed heavy arty regiment needed 1440 horses, could move 25 miles/day, and required 14.7 tons of horse food per day whether moving or not. So to move 50 miles, it required 29.4 tons. The same regiment pulled by tractors could do 50 miles in 1 day and only needed 4 tons of "tractor food" to do it. Thus, the tractors required less than 1/7 the amount of fuel to travel the same distance in 1/2 the time.

This huge reduction in the amount of fuel needed reduced the number of vehicles needed to carry supplies. A regiment of heavy arty probably had 36 guns. At 19 horses per gun, that's 684 horses. Yet the regiment had 1440 horses. I'd expect most of the extra were used hauling supplies to feed themselves and the gun horses

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Don't count on getting much work out of them that way though. Pulling heavy loads like artillery requires heap big energy, like you only get from lots of grain in their diet. And if it's winter time, don't count on many of them staying alive for very long on what they can forage in a given area, even if idle.

Who would be idiotic enough to use wheels in (deep) snow when you can put skis under the gun and slide it over the snow (or on ice roads) with that much less effort ?

Many (most ?) Finnish horses were commandeered from civilians and they had worked lumbercamps during winter and the fields during the summer so they were used to pulling heavy loads in the same conditions they were required to pull the guns. And the gun crews knew the conditions and how to take care of the horses.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Well, there is the small matter of being able to produce the necessary machinery. All countries able to produce the machines in sufficient quantities made the transition as speedily as their economies would allow, including the Soviet Union who were actually somewhat pioneers in this area.

Why then did the Red Army still use horses to draw artillery in 1944-45 ? There are reports of Finnish Stugs running over teams of horses during counterattacks.

Transportation is always a problem for all armies that intend to go anywhere. Granted, Continental armies were not normally concerned with marine shipping space, but they all had to think about how much they could move efficiently by rail.

There is also the thing about POL resources in Europe being very limited. Fodder for horses was easier to come by.

Not much, as the figures that Bullethead quoted should serve to illustrate.

It should, yes. But what about actual numbers ? How did the projections made based on WWI figures apply to the WWII ?

Besides, sometimes armies could in fact scrounge POL, though it isn't something they should have counted on (witness the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge).

QED.

But for instance, the Germans in their dash across northern France in 1940 were occasionally able to refuel their tanks at French filling stations.

How much of that was due to German planners wanting have their vehciles be able to do that ? Which other armies could do that (fill up at a civilian petrol station) ?

Rommel frequently ran his army in North Africa on captured fuel.

And look how far he got with it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

It's a lot easier to get spare parts for a machine than for an animal You can also mix and match parts from several wrecked vehicles to make at least one of them functional. You can't do that with animals.

True. But How many spare wrecks did they carry along ?

You're missing the point. One tractor replaced a whole team of horses. Thus, a team short 1 horse is analogous to a tractor with the engine not firing on 1 cylinder. Both still function at reduced capacity.

What if it is the engine block or radiator we are talking about ? The analogue works both ways.

Again, the tractor replaces a whole team. How big a target is a team of 16 draft horses, compared to a tractor?

Which guns did they have to pull with 16 horses ?On the road the team is bigger bigger, on the firing position the single horse is smaller than the tractor, provided the gun crew is not a bunch of idiots and they do not disperse the horses properly.

However, I do know that normally they don't lie down very much--they even sleep standing up. Their normal response to danger is to run away, not hit the deck.

The Finnish war horses at least learned to take cover when they heard a plane. Or they came under fire. After the war the farmers had a hard time when they would still go through the routines even if there was no danger but a plane flew over head or there was a sudden loud bang.

Tractors neither run away nor hit the deck. However, you can at least dig a hole to put them in. Try getting a horse in that

The Finnish soldiers did construct dug out shelters for horses just the same way they did for themsleves.

It's a lot easier to break flesh and bone than it is metal--tractors are much less likely to fail than horses under the same level of adverse conditions.

Ever had a diesel glog up in mild zub zero temperature ?

And a horse with a broken leg from "wear and tear" over a bad road is not fixable in a militarily practical sense. Hell, they're usually not fixable in a peacetime civilian sense. But the tractor will not even notice the pot hole that breaks the horse's leg.

Unless the main axel breaks.

I disagree. Run a team of 16 straining draft horses over soft ground and see how they tear it up.

By a tractor I mean fully tracked vehicle. Not the wheeled modern one.

In such conditions, horses wouldn't be able to move either. But when the thaw finally comes, the tractor could be made to move again. The horses will be corpses.

In the case of Germans in the Eastern Front the Russian horses were more resilient. And the Finnish horses. I also wonder if the gun crews were derelict in constructing shelters for the horses.

By and large, there isn't any horse forage in the woods. Horses are creatures of open, grassy plains, not forests. So both horses and tractors would need fuel carried along on such a trip. In which case, the tractor has the advantage by requiring far less supplies over the same distance traveled.

How far can a vehicle travel with half a ration of fuel ? Compared to horses.

Also, there is a lot more food to be found in a forest than you might think. Being animals the horses would eat bark off the trees and so on.

[Stoffel]

I did some research on the German 15th army

In 1944 almost all their units depended on horses for transport

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[qb]Rommel frequently ran his army in North Africa on captured fuel.

And look how far he got with it.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Farther than it was prudent to go, actually.

Michael