1935 Germany. Why horse drawn artillery and supply wagons?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Reliability was an issue outside the military.
In the US there were many New Deal farm deals on offer to encourage people to buy and use tractors rather than traditional horse power. Unreliability was one of the reasons most commonly cited against doing so. People are also naturally more comfortable with the familiar, though by this time more than 1 in 10 Americans was driving a car.
Cheers
Steve
 
Also, in the years leading up to WWII, the U.S. was crippled by the "Great Depression" where few people could afford the luxury of a new tractor (or vehicle) and even those that could, in some cases were devastated by the Dust Bowl of the midwest.
 
True. You have to think like someone in the 1930s. The internal combustion engine, as driving a 'horseless carriage' was still only a generation old. many of the people making decisions in the 1930s would have been adults before the first commercially produced automobiles had taken to what passed for roads in those days. The model T Ford was launched in about 1910 IIRC.
Cheers
Steve
 
Cavalry traditions are one thing. Logistics are another. There are darn few lyric poems or songs about the glories of moving the supply train/baggage train along

The horse artillery may have gone gallantly into action even in 1914 but the traditions of the siege artillery (often pulled by oxen in earlier times) had NO breif with galloping into action, firing a few shots at a decisive point or time and galloping off again.

The British, French and Germans had ALL used mechanized traction in WW I. Mechanized meaning any form of mechanical traction although this picture shows both meanings;



Both tracks and no internal combustion engine

And a more conventional artillery tractor



back to steam?



The advantages were rather well known by the 1930s. The problem was how fast you could convert the existing plant( number of men knowledgable about horses, hose barns, farms, pastures, veterinary corp, horse hospitals and fodder, harness, wagon supply chain over to a a motor vehicle plant ( drivers, mechanics, garages, parts warehouses, gas,oil and tire supplies, etc) with peace time budgets it take years to make the change.
 
Motorisation might have had some resistance in the back roads of bavaria, but the germans were at the cutting edge of the technology by the 1920s, and would have fully embraced it in their military had they the means to do it.

A good analogy in todays terms is our experiences with computers . Motor vehicles were starting to impact on society by about 1900. By 1935, motor veheicles were deeply embedded in western society. Computers began to make an impact on society in the late '70s and early '80s. its not even 40 years later, and yet we can hardly imagine our world without them. Motor vehicles were having a similar effect 1900-1935.

After WWI, the german army embraced motorisation at least on a theoretical basis. They established an entire department dedicated to achieving motorisation within the army, and from that department came men like Guderian.

The Germans, the ones that mattered, embraced the motor vehicle heartily. Hitler wanted motor vehicle ownership to be aa reality in every german household, and i believe germans accepted that notion enthusiastically. Like all armies of the time, there was some resistance in the military, but the army were keenly aware that it was their largely horsedrawn baggage train that had failed them in 1914, and with that experience to motivate them, no serious resistance to motorisation was ever put forward.

The germans retained horse drawn transport as a major element, because they had no choice other than to accept it. There just was not the strength in their motor vehicle industry to have the mass army that they needed, and put it all on wheels/tracks. Once war brok out, like all the major proteagonists, the germans utilised significant amounts of their motor vehicle industry to augment other production programs, like AFV production, aero engines, and artillery components. They made the mistake of over mobilising which sucked out large numbers of skilled workers and pout them into the army. The french made a similar error, the British not as bad.
 
I read a while back that an estimated 6 million horses perished between German and Red Russian forces during WWII.

It. Would be interesting to see the total amount of horses (and mules) used by all countries in all theaters.
 
no, but it does say that the germans employed 2.75 million horses, which was the largest contingent of any combatant. The Russians are thought to be around the 2 million mark. in '39 thye US still had 0.5 million on the books, as did the French in '39
 
The British army went to a higher level of motorisation pre war than any other and thanks must be passed to Canada whose transport vehicles enabled this to continue. The contribution of the USA motor industry to the Soviet army is well recognised but it was the Canadian motor industry that moved the Commonwealth in Europe and North Africa. Thank you chaps and chapesses from far off exotic Canadia (surely that is where Canadians come from?)
 
vikingBerserker said:
I would have thought Russia used horses far more than Germany.
Click to expand...

so would i, but it is plausible at least. Russian formation were almost completely devoid of a supply tail which meant a 9000 strong Infantry Division with 3/4 the numbers of men, had manpower had about 1/3 the horses. moreover, the Russians never really had an intermediate logisitic tail....divisions would load up on supplies from a railhead, go into battle, fight until the ammunition ran out, then either wait for the rail head to move forward, or walk back to the supply head and get more supply for another go. This decrease their efficiency enormously, but it also decrease their supply problems.
 
German half track = Maultier. Is that what you mean or are you referring to 3/4 track vehicles which as far as I know were unique to German service?

Half Track vs 3/4 track for dummies.
Side view of vehicle makes the difference obvious.

Opel Maultier Half Track.


U.S. M3 Half Track.


Sd.Kfz.251 3/4 Track APC. Note track length in contact with ground compared to above vehicles (especially USA M3).
 
I've read that the US Army decided to move to motorized transport because it reduced the overall logistic burden vs horses, although the US Army did use pack animals (mules, at least) in some areas. Do remember that you've got to feed the horses and muck out their enclosures whether or not they're being used. As an aside, the number I've read is that each draft horse requires five times the weight of food and water, per day, as does a soldier, and horses are probably fussier in their dietary needs than are people. Rarely is it that a human being dies of a form of colic, like intestinal torsion.

So, those 5,000 horses in a German infantry division required as much food and water as 25,000 soldiers. Of course, the German Army was planning on operating in areas where those supplies could be taken, so they wouldn't have to ship them in.
 
davebender said:
German half track = Maultier. Is that what you mean or are you referring to 3/4 track vehicles which as far as I know were unique to German service?
Click to expand...

Half Track doesnt refer to the length of the track. I checked with a couple of lads I know who are heavily involved in the classic military vehicle scene, they then checked with another lad who owns several German and US vehicles including a Kettenkrad it stands for Half Tracked/Half Wheeled.
 

Most armies knew that in the 1920s and early 30s. The problems came in trying to A.) pry money out of the treasury in peacetime in any ONE year (governments rarely look at costs over a 5 or 10 year period) to buy a large number of trucks and supporting infrastructure. B.) when the fertilizer hit the oscillating air handler, there was often not enough time (or money) to tool up enough factories ( or workers) to build the needed number of trucks in the time needed.
 
Then by your calculations, the U.S. M3 is a 1/4 track...
 
Hmmm, The Kfz 11 and KfZ 250 both had 6 road wheels and are 3/4 tracks?

the Kfz 10 had 5 road wheels and the armored Kfz 251 had only four road wheels,

a 5/8s track or 11/16ths track?

Early Kfz 6 and Kfz 7s used 4 road wheels per side and later changed to a longer track assembly with 6 road wheels, did they change from 1/2 or 5/8ths tracked vehicles to 3/4 tracked vehicles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
Why did Britain appease Germany and Italy, but not Japan?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Thumpalumpacus
S
Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
BarnOwlLover
A
Why closed bridges on USN DDs?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
594
Ghosts of War
Menu
Log in
Register