"An arguement against mechanization?" Topic

I have no idea if this is true, it's just something that occurred to me as I was working on a Winter War project.
By 1939 standards, the Soviets were one of the most mechanized armies in the world. yet they weren't 100% mechanized as they still took thousands of horses with them.
The Finns captured almost 1200 horses at Suomussalmi for example.
It seems to me when you are trapped in a motti with no supplies, it is easier to eat a horse than a truck.

Good point. Let's see whether Putin brings horses out of storage when he runs out of T-55's.

Or you would still have supplies if you had plenty of trucks.

As the Japanese demonstrated in Malaya, if you don't have trucks, you don't need roads.

Well, no mechanization is fine, until the other guy shows up with tanks… ;-)

Shardik, it didn't work out so well in 1944.

True.

Well, no mechanization is fine, until the other guy shows up with tanks… ;-)

Except in Finland in the winter!

I tend to think there's an argument that both the Germans and Soviets tried to run their armies simultaneously as modern mechanised marvels and historically proven horse-drawn anachronisms.

They each deployed a limited number of fully motorised formations while the majority of their Infantry Divisions were far more reliant on horses.

You can argue perhaps that while a typical Infantry/Rifle Division moves at the pace of its marching riflemen that motor transport is a luxury, and horse drawn supply wagons and artillery pieces are at no disadvantage as they would be in an armoured formation.

Had the German economy been able to provide similar output of mechanical transport as Britain, Canada and the US did, I don't doubt they would have taken far fewer horses to war.

Gary

If you can motorize it actually can lighten the logisitcal load. No need to move forage/feed for the horses. More, heavier lifts in less time with trucks. Less training of animals and handlers.

Trucks don't balk at gunfire (though drivers might!). wet and cold trucks still work.

Especially if you are going to need to cross oceans, motor or mechanized saves on tonnage

Horse cavalry can still be useful in extreme or unique conditions, altho' not in mass formations probably. I'm thinking guerilla operations, clandestine units in very rugged terrain. But if we're talking WWII, their day had passed.

Had the German economy been able to provide similar output of mechanical transport as Britain, Canada and the US did, I don't doubt they would have taken far fewer horses to war.

Had the German leadership made better use of the resources of their country (never mind the occupied ones), they could have probably produced significantly more motor transport vehicles.

However, another limitation they suffered from was access to fossil oil resources, which were rather limited in continental Europe. And while they could produce synthetic fuel as an alternative, that was not cheap.

Quoting the winter was is not irrelvant in some ways but not others, it's perhaps an outlier. Moterised transport needs to be appropriate. It needs fuel and to be capable of crossing the terrain. Horses in the desert are far harder to use as no fodder and they consume lots of water. Trucks if capable of running the terrain are much more effective in such conditions.

If the US invaded Greenland again it could be a winter war. Europe has troops and equipment very capable of working in the Artic environment. A key player in the US transport is the Swedish Equivalent of the BV206 brought from the Swedes, they have some still on order. Not great if you are fighting them! Innapropriate transport of any type will not be that effective.

Germany producing more trucks, would just mean them running out of oil sooner. Even in the Blitzkrieg era they were short of oil. It certainly impacted Kriegsmarine operations.

Fred is right. Germany was never going to be mostly motorized. The Germans needed to go after oil to keep their war machine running because of limited reserves in June 1941. This is the reason forces from the South broke away from the drive on Stalingrad and went towards the Caucasus.

Romania provided about 30% of their oil. Without developing synthetic fuel the war would have ended sooner.

However, the Russians had horses that operated when all mechanized units were frozen.

Wolfhag

Webster (Band of Brothers) had it right:
YouTube link