German horses

[Chris Allen]

I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.

I first heard about this in the 70's, watching the film "Patton". About
3/4 through the film, Patton tells Bradley he knows the Germans are on
their last legs because they are using horses to transport their
supplies. At the time, I presumed this was a last desperate attempt by
Germany to ward off defeat.

Since then I have learned they used many horses for that purpoas and in
many places. They appear many times in programs about the war in
Russia. Dead horse litter the road sides in photos of Normandy after
DDAY. I understand they genaerally used rail to get menu and supplies
close to the front. From their the infantry marched and horses pulled
the wagons for supplies.

Some programs explain these horses were a major part the German war
effort through out the whole war. These same programs concede that this
surprises many people today. Many people today assume Germany used
motorised transport as most armies do today.

So the question are.

1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to suggest
that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may have used some for a
while. I believe they made very good use of trucks suppled by the US.
I don't know about France or Italy.<UTF16-2028>

2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

[john szalay]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.
I first heard about this in the 70's, watching the film "Patton".
About 3/4 through the film, Patton tells Bradley he knows the Germans
are on their last legs because they are using horses to transport
their supplies. At the time, I presumed this was a last desperate
attempt by Germany to ward off defeat.
Since then I have learned they used many horses for that purpoas and
in many places. They appear many times in programs about the war in
Russia. Dead horse litter the road sides in photos of Normandy after
DDAY. I understand they genaerally used rail to get menu and supplies
close to the front. From their the infantry marched and horses pulled
the wagons for supplies.
Some programs explain these horses were a major part the German war
effort through out the whole war. These same programs concede that
this surprises many people today. Many people today assume Germany
used motorised transport as most armies do today.
So the question are.
1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to suggest
that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may have used some for
a while. I believe they made very good use of trucks suppled by the
US. I don't know about France or Italy.<UTF16-2028>
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why
did the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

Kauai, Hawaii
Date taken: October 1942
Photographer: Joe Scherschel


http://images.google.com/hosted/life/c3db1d1f2bc8a28e.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/781cd516aa6767e3.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/d815b87195cd857f.html


Philippines
Photographer: Carl Mydans

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/44a850c771d8a082.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/4199cb83dffe17f5.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/29c5632324ae07ef.html


Frontline Mule Skinners, Italy
Date taken: December 1943
Photographer: George Rodger

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/6c40d470f5702d16.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/6c364804856b97b7.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/0e9a4faa93fecbc0.html


Cavalry in maneuvers at Ft. Francis Warren.
Location: WY, US
Date taken: 1938
Photographer: Horace Bristol

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/708e4cccf837f58f.html


Thrid Cavalry Leaving Ft. Myer
Date taken: February 1942
Photographer: Myron Davis

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/ce398d3959d4d95b.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/e9400f144329d015.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/b5387e139cbd9f5c.html

[Alan Meyer]

On 07/04/2015 12:52 PM, Chris Allen wrote:
...

Post by Chris Allen
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

Richard Overy in _Why the Allies Won the War_ claims (on page 225):

In 1937 the U.S. "produced 4.8 million motor vehicles;
Germany produced 331,000, Italy 71,000, Japan 26,000. For
every thousand Americans there were well over two hundred
motorcars and trucks; for every thousand Germans only
sixteen; for every thousand Japanese there was less than
one."

German industrial capacity, high as it was, was far from that of the
U.S. and, in motor vehicles particularly, was only a very small fraction
of U.S. production.

On top of that, other countries including the US, UK and USSR, all
placed their economies on a war footing very early, and organized it
rationally for war needs. Again, according to Overy, Germany was
producing too many different models of planes, tanks, trucks, guns,
etc., including many in French or Czech factories that were based on
French or Czech models, not German ones. Overy says Germany had 151
types of lorry in service.

This encumbered their use of these materials by burdening the forces
with more complicated spare parts and maintenance requirements. The
Germans eventually turned over production management to Albert Speer
who, by 1944, dramatically streamlined it and boosted production
tremendously. Speer reduced truck production to just 23 types. But by
then it was too late. By late Spring, 1944, the long range P-51 enabled
successful deep penetration air raids all over Germany, rail transport
was being bombed into oblivion, oil production was curtailed, and what
production there was had to be, or I should say should have been,
devoted to arms and ammunition. But of course Hitler still interfered
with his lunatic ideas and devoted huge production resources to the
"Vengeance" weapons (V-1 and V2) and, has been discussed elsewhere in
this forum, devoting important transportation resources to implementing
the Holocaust.

As you indicated in your posting, the Russians would have had to use
more horse transport than they did because they received so many trucks
from the U.S. The Russians concentrated on producing artillery, tanks
and aircraft and, amazingly, outproduced Germany in every one of those
categories, if I remember correctly, in every year of the war. Someone
please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Alan

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.
. . . 1) Was Germany unusual in this?

No: in 1939 only the British Expeditionary Force was fully
motorized; the French, German and Russian armies still
used horses, mostly at the level of smaller units (based on
WW1 experience.

Post by Chris Allen
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't believe
they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they expected to win.

Victorious German forces in 1939-40 were largely motorized
i.e. moved faster than had been possible in August 1915 or
October 1918. No one who expected a short war (as all
Germans did by October 1939 if not earlier) "anticipated fuel shortages "

[Michele]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.
. . . 1) Was Germany unusual in this?

No: in 1939 only the British Expeditionary Force was fully
motorized; the French, German and Russian armies still
used horses, mostly at the level of smaller units (based on
WW1 experience.

When you say "mostly at the level of smaller units" you might be
thinking of actual cavalry and/or mounted infantry.

But the main use of horses in all those armies was for logistics _and
artillery_. And in that sense, horses were used at the level of _large_
units - divisions. German infantry divisions had horse drawn logistics
and artillery throughout the war. So did the Soviets. So did essentially
everyone else save the USA. If whole motorized armies were fielded, that
was mainly on the basis of fielding select units, for special
expeditionary duties, like the BEF. And even in that case, "motorized"
means "with motorized supply and artillery" - infantry still marched.

[Kenneth Young]

Post by Chris Allen
1) Was Germany unusual in this?

No only the US and UK had fully motorised armies. In the UK case IIRC
fitting out the BEF required stripping transport from home units.

Post by Chris Allen
why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport?

Germany lacked the industrial plant and trained mechanics. They made
massive use of captured trucks and fuel. I have come across comments that
Barberossa was dependent on French fuel reserves

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Kenneth Young

Post by Chris Allen
1) Was Germany unusual in this?

No only the US and UK had fully motorised armies. In the UK case IIRC
fitting out the BEF required stripping transport from home units.

It's more accurate to say that the US and UK deployed fully motorized
armies, except for a few special cases.

As far as I can tell from a quick check, in both cases, full
motorization only took place during the mobilization buildups. Prior to
that point, neither military had had sufficient resources to pay for the
equipment necessary. Both made do between the wars primarily with
trucks, tractors and other mechanized equipment purchased for the Great
War.

When I looked at Coffman's _The Regulars: The American Army, 1898-1941_,
I found an account of the 6th Field Artillery, which had been an
experimental fully-motorized unit for some time, being converted back to
horses in 1934. This caused some issues as the enlisted men hadn't been
trained to work with horses. Coffman also cites several accounts from
the Hawaiian Division, which was fully motorized in the 1930s.
Apparently the troops spent much of their time scrambling to keep enough
equipment functional to handle small-scale maneuvers.

I think the key point to remember is that World War Two occurred right
on the cusp of mechanization of society in the developed world.
Countries such as the UK and the US who had a larger industrial base and
the luxury of a more protracted mobilization and proportionally smaller
armies, were able to fully pursue mechanized warfare. Other countries
weren't able to.

[GFH]

Post by Stephen Graham
I think the key point to remember is that World War Two occurred right
on the cusp of mechanization of society in the developed world.
Countries such as the UK and the US who had a larger industrial base and
the luxury of a more protracted mobilization and proportionally smaller
armies, were able to fully pursue mechanized warfare. Other countries
weren't able to.

Heinz Altmann told us that he could smell the Americans
several days before they saw the Americans. The smell
was exhaust from all of the motor vehicles. For those
who do not remember him: http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=32

And, horse-drawn resupply meant that the German Army
Panzer Corps could only advance faster than men and
horses can walk for very short distances and for a
very short time. Resupply is critical for any army.

One could argue that the US Quartermaster Corps won
the war for the Allies.

GFH

[john szalay]

Post by Stephen Graham
horses in 1934. This caused some issues as the enlisted men hadn't been
trained to work with horses. Coffman also cites several accounts from
the Hawaiian Division, which was fully motorized in the 1930s.
Apparently the troops spent much of their time scrambling to keep enough
equipment functional to handle small-scale maneuvers.

My Dad was with the 55th Coast Artillery in Hawaii from 1940 to 1947
one thing I noticed right off,in photos in his service album show the
badly worn tires on many of the trucks assigned to his battery.
(towed 155mm)

[Rich]

Post by Chris Allen
So the question are.
1) (snip, already answered)
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport?

One major factor was Germany's vibrant and expanding motor vehicle
industry was not utilized to produce motor vehicles for the German
armed forces. Instead, it was primarily converted to the manufacture
of sub-components for other industry, primarily aircraft.

Part of the reason initially was the expectation of a short war,
which would be decided operationally by the motorized Schnelltruppen,
while the slower-moving infantry forces excepted . That notion was
validated by the Polish Campaign and then further proven by the
French and Balkans campaigns, only to come a cropper in the Soviet
Union.

Another was the inability of the German Wehrmacht to decide on
standardized sets of vehicles until forced into it mid-war. Then
there was the "convenience" of utilizing captured Czech, Polish,
French, and - later - Italian motor vehicles.

BTW, Speer had little to do with the "miracle". He simply
presided over the measures which had already been decided on.
However, since his narrative dovetailed nicely with the ideas
of the strategic bomber advocates, he became a darling of the
BBSU and especially the USSBS.

[john szalay]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.
I first heard about this in the 70's, watching the film "Patton".
About 3/4 through the film, Patton tells Bradley he knows the Germans
are on their last legs because they are using horses to transport
their supplies. At the time, I presumed this was a last desperate
attempt by Germany to ward off defeat.
Since then I have learned they used many horses for that purpoas and
in many places. They appear many times in programs about the war in
Russia. Dead horse litter the road sides in photos of Normandy after
DDAY. I understand they genaerally used rail to get menu and supplies
close to the front. From their the infantry marched and horses pulled
the wagons for supplies.
Some programs explain these horses were a major part the German war
effort through out the whole war. These same programs concede that
this surprises many people today. Many people today assume Germany
used motorised transport as most armies do today.
So the question are.
1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to suggest
that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may have used some for
a while. I believe they made very good use of trucks suppled by the
US. I don't know about France or Italy.<UTF16-2028>
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why
did the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

Going through the LIFE photo archives, apparently Germany's use of horses
was not a last ditch effort, there are many images of horse transport
in the very start in 1939 & 1940-41. supplies, men and even artilley
pulled by horse. I,ve posted links to use of horse by the US in the
early part of the war years, IIRC: the last cav charge by US forces was
in Jan 1942, in the Philippine islands...

when we lived at Ft Riley Kansas in the 1950s, there were still 3 ex-cav
horses they had thier own 1600 ft x 670ft pasture and were taken care of
by a old master Sgt. that lived in a stone house within the pasture .

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/15969

[Kenneth Young]

Post by john szalay
there are many images of horse transport
in the very start in 1939 & 1940-41.
From memory the only fully motorised units in a 1939 Infantry Division

were the AA, AT and reconnaissance elements everything else including
artillery was horse drawn. By the way Panzer divisions usually had only
one infantry regiment in armoured half-tracks due to shortages.

[Michele]

Post by Kenneth Young

Post by john szalay
there are many images of horse transport
in the very start in 1939 & 1940-41.
From memory the only fully motorised units in a 1939 Infantry Division

were the AA, AT and reconnaissance elements everything else including
artillery was horse drawn. By the way Panzer divisions usually had only
one infantry regiment in armoured half-tracks due to shortages.

Not from memory, the recon elements of a 1939 infantry division weren't
entirely motorized. They included a squadron on horses and one on
bicycles, or some variation thereof.
As to the infantry of the Panzerdivisionen, in 1939 they only had
unarmored trucks, no armored halftracks at all.

[john szalay]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.
I first heard about this in the 70's, watching the film "Patton".
About 3/4 through the film, Patton tells Bradley he knows the Germans
are on their last legs because they are using horses to transport
their supplies. At the time, I presumed this was a last desperate
attempt by Germany to ward off defeat.
Since then I have learned they used many horses for that purpoas and
in many places. They appear many times in programs about the war in
Russia. Dead horse litter the road sides in photos of Normandy after
DDAY. I understand they genaerally used rail to get menu and supplies
close to the front. From their the infantry marched and horses pulled
the wagons for supplies.
Some programs explain these horses were a major part the German war
effort through out the whole war. These same programs concede that
this surprises many people today. Many people today assume Germany
used motorised transport as most armies do today.
So the question are.
1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to suggest
that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may have used some for
a while. I believe they made very good use of trucks suppled by the
US. I don't know about France or Italy.<UTF16-2028>
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why
did the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

German troops entering Bulgaria on horse drawn carts
Location: Bulgaria
Date taken: March 1941

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/e2932e0076adc75a.html

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/2de9028d42456006.html


German Troops in Kufstein, Austrian Anschluss, 1938.

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/3b3ee1f7478f7f9a.html


General Field Marshall von Bock reviews troops in the Place de la
Concorde;
fall of Paris.
Location: Paris, France
Date taken: June 14, 1940

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/f38895a6a5b8a129_large


Hitler (L) viewing the victory parade in Warsaw after the German invasion
of Poland.
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Date taken: October 1939

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/3f3b4277f1ce27f8_large

[William Clodius]

<snip>
So the question are.
1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to suggest
that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may have used some for a
while. I believe they made very good use of trucks suppled by the US.
I don't know about France or Italy.<UTF16-2028>

The degree of motorization at the start of war varied from the
Britain/US that were essntially 100% motorized, to the French and
Soviets still significantly horse dependent, to the Germans, significant
motorization, to the Far east, where motorization is neglibible.

2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many areas, why did
the stick to such old fashioned notions about transport? I can't
believe they anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

Automobile/truck production in Germany was not as large per capita as in
the US, Britain and France. The rail/canal network was extensive, so for
in country transport they didn't need that production, and money was
tight post WW-I. Further the Germans at the start of 1939 got most of
their fuel from the Americas, supplemented by fuel from the Soviets,
minor supplies from Romania, and expensive fuel from coal conversion.
They knew that sources from the Americas would essentialy vanishe with
the invasion of Poland, and the imposition of the British blockade. So a
reliance on horse drawn logistics was viewed as a necessity in the early
war. Their successes in 1939 and 1940 provided them with captured trucks
and fuel that temporarilly relieved their situation. Still by mid-1941
it was obvious that Germany didn't have the funds to pay for additional
Soviet petrol, and they only had enough fuel for a few months campaign.
Truck losses in Barbarossa, followed by limited fuel supplies late in
1941 resulted in the return to extensive reliance on horses throughout
the rest of the war.

[Mario]

Post by Chris Allen
1) Was Germany unusual in this? Ive seen / heard nothing to
suggest that Britain or US used horses at all. Russia may
have used some for a while. I believe they made very good
use of trucks suppled by the US. I don't know about France or
Italy.

Italy had cavalry and used it in Russia and maybe in Balkans
(?).

Italy used horses to pull wheeled carts from rail stations to
front line and mules to bear "on muleback" goods in off road
transport.

Mules were valued more than men in WW1.

They remained in service till the Seventies IIRC (Alpine
troops)

Post by Chris Allen
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in many
areas, why did the stick to such old fashioned notions about
transport? I can't believe they anticpiated fuel shortages
at the end of a war they expected to win.

If you have no oil, you don't motorize...

Also if you have good rail network and material, you don't look
motorization as necessary.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.

The Germans used horse-drawn transport to move
artillery and other equipment on the march, and to
move supplies from railheads to the front lines.

Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have learned they used many horses for that purpoas and in
many places. They appear many times in programs about the war in
Russia. Dead horse litter the road sides in photos of Normandy after
DDAY.

Ike visited the Falaise pocket after the fighting. There
were dead bodies everywhere - but most of them were horses.
He wrote that "one could literally walk for hundreds of
yards stepping only on dead and decaying flesh."

Post by Chris Allen
Some programs explain these horses were a major part
the German war effort through out the whole war.
1) Was Germany unusual in this?

No. Motorization was a very New Thing. However, most
accounts of WW II note the vehicles, and rarely feature
the horses. There are lots of people who collect or
model or replicate WW II vehicles, but almost no one who
makes up WW II harness or wagons.

Post by Chris Allen
I've seen / heard nothing to suggest that Britain or
US used horses at all.

The US and British forces were by far the most heavily
motorized/mechanized of the war.

The North African theater is disproportionately known
in the US and Britain, and it was almost devoid of
horses, because of the lack of forage. Even the Axis
was motorized there. (For supply; there was a lot of
Italian "leg infantry".)

Post by Chris Allen
Russia may have used some for a while. I believe
they made very good use of trucks suppled by the US.

Soviet forces used horses throughout the war for
transport and in cavalry formations. (Hmm. What about
the Manchurian campaign? The Soviets could be more
selective about the forces employed there, and they
knew from the beginning that their troops would be
moving far and fast, and that the Japanese were very
vulnerable to armored forces. But they still used
cavalry there, I'd guess, including Mongols for
obvious reasons.)

Post by Chris Allen
2) Given that Germany was so technically advanced in
many areas, why did the stick to such old fashioned
notions about transport? I can't believe they
anticpiated fuel shortages at the end of a war they
expected to win.

Germany simply did not have the number of vehicles
required to displace the horses. German vehicle production
was in the tens of thousands while the Allies produced
millions. Germany also did not have the numbers of
men experienced in driving and maintaining motor vehicles.

Finally, and most important, Germany was _always_ very
short of oil. In 1939-1941, some oil was supplied by
the USSR; there was a middle-sized oil field in Romania,
and some oil was synthesized from coal.

But this limited supply had to be stretched to fill the
voracious engines of tens of thousands of aircraft, and
hundreds of thousands of trucks and tanks. The German
Navy required oil for U-boats, for surface ships, and
for the thousands of small craft (such as minesweepers
and minelayers) that operated along the coasts. (The
Germans built a lot of coal-fired vessels, despite the
inefficiencies of coal, simply because of the shortage
of oil.)

Germany's allies needed oil too. Italy had no oil at
all, and needed to fuel its air force, its navy, and
its motorized forces in North Africa.

The German shortages of fuel and vehicles were such
that a "static" division deployed for coastal
defense would have one motorcar for the commanding
general, a few motorcycles for dispatch riders, and
no other motor vehicles at all.

I've been told that the Germans designed and produced
horse-drawn carts with the latest technology - steel
bodies, ball-bearing axles, et cetera.

Now, I have a question which someone needs to answer
someday. (It could be a doctoral thesis in history.)

How many draft horses were there in Europe in 1939, by
country? How many were in German or other Axis service
at various times during the war? Are there
month-by-month records of horses on strength in each
army, corps, division?

And what were the surviving populations of draft horses
on V-E Day?
I would note that while a truck or a tank or a cannon
can be replaced by new manufacturing in a few months
or weeks, it takes a minimum of three years to make a
draft horse.

[David Wilma]

Youtube has a film from 1944 of the German surrender at Beaugency,
France. At 2:45 you see the transport a hodgepodge of German and
civilian motor vehicles, but a large contingent of horse drawn. The
U.S. Army fields to collect weapons and horses.

[w***@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 9:52:43 AM UTC-7, Chris Allen wrote:

I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.

(snip)

No doubt one of the "Achilles Heels" that the German Wehrmacht
had was motor transport on the Eastern Front. This necessitated
the use of German horses for transport. One wonders how many
captured French and Polish, and German transport vehicles broke
down when "rasputitsa", the quagmire season in Russia, set in in
the spring after melting snow, and fall after rainstorms, left
vehicles stranded due to unavailability of spare parts and the
mechanics to repair the vehicles stuck in rivers of mud.

With only about 20 percent of the Wehrmacht mechanized, and with
most of the infantry and panzer grenadier units marching on foot
across the steppes, its no wonder that guys like Guderian, Hoepner,
Hoth, etc. were complaining about lack of infantry as it took
almost a week for the foot sloggers to catch up to armor and
mechanized units that advanced rapidly (I can hear 'Schneller
Heinz' even now, arguing with Hitler).

An example of fast-moving armor: when the 16th Panzer Division
reached the Volga north of the big industrial plants in the
northern part of Stalingrad on the 23rd of August 1942, the
division soon found itself isolated and cut off due to the lack
of supporting grenadiers. Meanwhile, Paulus was busy fighting
off flanking attacks by Russian units coming down out of an
Upper Don bridgehead (Leliechenko and the 4th Guards Tank Army?).
Can't recall.

Getting back to the issue of horses, one of the big problems
the Germans had was the lack of high protein fodder for their
horses. German horses were large and powerful, with tremendous
pulling power, and needed the high-energy diet. As rasputitsa
muddied up unpaved Russian roads, the horses got weaker from
the lack of a suitable diet and began dying. The situation
became exacerbated by decreasing supplies due to an ever-
lengthening supply line, larger railroad gauge used by the
Russians, and increased partisan attacks on rail lines as the
Wehrmacht moved further east. And, based on Hitler's assumption
that one "only had to kick in the door, and the whole rotten
structure will come crashing down", Hitler reasoned the whole
operation of Barbarossa would be over by December 1941, so it
would be unfeasible to supply high-protein fodder for horses,
and suitable winter clothing, etc. for German troops.

When the Germans enlisted the use of Russian horses for
transport, they found that the Russian horses had nowhere
near the pulling power the German horses had. The advantage
the Russian horses had, however, was that they could sustain
life by eating the grasses and grains on the steppes until,
of course, General Winter began to rear his ugly head.

Speaking of the General, he had a lot to do with the Wehrmacht
grinding to a screeching halt at Krasnaya Polyana northwest
of Moscow in December of 1941 as Plan Typhoon fell apart in -30
temps.

One thing the Russian horses did, however, was to help feed a
starving and freezing 6th Army and part of the 4th Panzer Army
at Stalingrad between November 1942 and February 1943.

Tim Watkins

[David Wilma]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Getting back to the issue of horses, one of the big problems
the Germans had was the lack of high protein fodder for their
horses. German horses were large and powerful, with tremendous
pulling power, and needed the high-energy diet.

It's not like the Germans did not have this information. In August and
September 1914 the advance into Belgium and France bogged down
partially because the army counted on foraging for fodder. That
time of the year the available fodder was green and causes the
horses to fail (not sure of the biological description).

[Roman W]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:05:32 -0400, David Wilma

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:07:46 PM UTC-7,

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Getting back to the issue of horses, one of the big problems
the Germans had was the lack of high protein fodder for their
horses. German horses were large and powerful, with tremendous
pulling power, and needed the high-energy diet.

It's not like the Germans did not have this information. In August and
September 1914 the advance into Belgium and France bogged down
partially because the army counted on foraging for fodder. That
time of the year the available fodder was green and causes the
horses to fail (not sure of the biological description).

Bonaparte's cavalry suffered the same problem in 1812.

RW

[w***@hotmail.com]

Post by Chris Allen
I know Germany used horses a great deal to transport supplies to the front.

(snip)

In an earlier post, I stated that possibly it had been the 4th
Guards Tank Army (Lt Gen Leliushenko) that was attacking elements
of Paulus's 6th Army between the Don and the Volga rivers.

Elements of the 16th Panzers, isolated and cut off when they
reached the western bank of the Volga, were brought under attack
by an all-female AA regiment. After the Russian unit was
wiped out, the Germans were shocked to find that females had
been attacking the division in the northern part of Stalingrad.

As for the Soviet 4th Tank Army, the Army had not achieved Guard
status until 17 March 1945, when it was then commanded by Lt.
Gen. Leliushenko. On 23 August 1942, the 4th Tank Army was
commanded by Maj. Gen. V.D. Kryuchenkin, then part of the
Stalingrad Front.

Tim Watkins

[R Leonard]

Go here

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/

then click on "World War II Operational Documents"

When that page come up, type "German Army Horses" in the search box.

Your first choice is the subject

Horses in the German Army (1941-1945).
Mueller-Hillebrand, Burkhart
Considers the usage of horses in the German Army, both historically and in the (then) current war.


It is in seven, yes, seven parts. You'll have to download them one at a time.

Anything you ever wanted to know about the use of horses in the German army during the war, right down to which breed were best for what task.