NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Manokan Republic]

First, horses can actually pull more and faster, and second, you don't need to pull as much weight as you aren't carrying all the heavy armor and steel and whatnot that is in a truck. You are traveling light to go around something a vehicle would have trouble doing, like the side of a mountain, a very sandy area in the desert wheels are likely to be stuck in, a really muddy area a vehicle may get stuck in, and so on. The reason why special forces uses horses and camels in Afghanistan is due to the sandy areas and mountains which were hard to travel in vehicles with, but easy to do so with animals, for all the reasons I have described.

No they used pack animals because that was all their was for them to use. The pack animals were supplied by local forces the SoF were linking up with. Notably as soon as the US had feet on the ground and were setting up bases and fighting in Afganistan they used trucks.

Two horses together can on average pull about 24,000 pounds at around 3-6 mph for sustained periods of time [1][2][3], however, you don't need to do that as horses are not 12,000 pounds a pop, each. You only carry that much weight when using armored vehicles, as the vehicles are expected to pull their own weight. That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Like infantry, the goal is not uh, well pulling heavy things, it's about getting a person to location faster. The figure of 1.5 times their body weight you're using is for deadweight, and not the weight on wheels. Obviously if you pull the weight when it's on wheels, it's much easier to transport.

First none of your sources talk about hauling loads over 1.5 the horses weight for days at a time, nor do they mention the speed that it can be done at.

http://www.wagonteamster.com/html/faqs.html
https://horsefaqs.com/how-much-weight-c ... on-wheels/ gives a higher ration (2-3 but requires roads)
https://horserookie.com/how-much-weight ... orse-pull/ (again notes 1.5 for long haul, higher for short hall)
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/ ... 8f2ebe6217 saying the massive weights pulled was measured in feet

Also the weight given for the vehicle in my example was the cargo weight, not the weight of the vehicle itself.

As to speed, the truck was still 20 times faster not including rest time, even if you double the horses speed the truck is still 10 times faster.

So, two horses can carry a halftrack at slow speeds more or less. The goal is typically to use horses to get somewhere faster like over rough terrain rather than use them for all logistics purposes, though. If you did, they could carry a lot of weight, but would do so much more slowly than most vehicles. Or you could get there faster, but with less weight.

Even with out weight the truck is going to be faster than the horse, even over rough terrain. The amount of terrain a horse can travel that a truck or jeep can't is small. Also you can't move at high speeds on a horse over rough terrain unless you want to have injured/dead horses and riders.

IIRC a horses ground pressure is higher than a car or trucks, 75 psi vs 20-30 psi.

The advantage here is a reduction of fuel, which is useful considering it's a specific resource you can't get ahold of easily, and so getting the vehicles near the combat location at all by slowly pulling them would be the goal. The main purpose of horses or infantry is mobility, they can easily go places most modern vehicles can't. A horse can jump over obstacles, where as vehicles have to be going really fast to clear half the distance a horse or even human can.

Reduced fuel but greatly increased food and water needs, which aren't everywhere.

The number of places pack animals can go that vehicles can't is small. While a horse can jump it can't do so while pulling or carrying a heavy load.

To put forth an analogy that maybe will drive it home, imagine police never got out of their cars. They could only chase after suspects, in cars. The moment they're in a building, run down an alley way, go in to the woods etc. you would be completely useless and the suspect could always escape. So, now you're in a pickle, how do you chase after people? Well, you get out and pursue on foot, which removes a lot of your advantages and puts you at risk of the enemy shooting you, or, you use say, a horse. Horses can jump and maneuver over obstacles, and balance in awkward situations, where as a car cannot. It's as simple as that, and it's kind of just an intuitive thing.

Notably horse mounted police are rare, largely work in cities where they make the officers visible in crowds, and crowds visible to officers, are used in incredibly small numbers, and aren't used often in pursuit situations. I mean the Canadian Mounties don't use horse for regular duties, and haven't since the 1930's.

So yeah if you want to use an incredibly small number of horses to transport special forces while they are outside of logistical support feel free. But that is a rather niche use.

Your numbers show two main things, one that the figure differs from DEAD weight vs. the weight on wheels, and second one of your sources says "That’s right: pairing horses increases load capability, or how much weight they can pull together. If one horse can pull a cart weighing 6,000 lbs, two horses should be able to pull 12,000 lbs, right? If those horses are working together, they can actually pull 18,000 lbs — three times the load one horse working alone can pull." The numbers vary so much based on how the animal is pulling or carrying the weight. If it's on it's back or dragged behind it, it will be far less than if it's in a cart. A human can push or pull a very heavy cart by their bare hands, or even push a car if need be, so that's not that crazy. If a full grown adult male can push a car that's not in break, and it's only a few thousand pounds, then a horse definitely can pull one. If it's on wheels, you can reasonably expect a horse to pull several thousand pounds at speed for a distance of 10's of miles a day, easy, considering that a human can as well. People have pushed their cars several miles to get to rest stops before.

ANYWAYS. As I said before, the main advantage is not really raw tonnage, but maneuverability, the same as humans. You can cover terrain much more easily that vehicles can't, thus going the path that is least likely to expose you to enemy fire. The reason why helicopters don't go up super high in mountains and they send in infantry instead, or soldiers on horses/with pack mules, is for this reason. The higher pressure for their hooves is a good thing, as it means the smaller surface area can be balanced in a smaller area, thus allowing for less space in between obstacles to still allow a horse to travel. Horses can also jump over or step over large obstacles, where as a wheeled vehicle must always remain flat on the ground in most circumstances, reducing it's maneuverability. Horses and camels are often used in deserts, mountains, urban areas and rural areas, be it by police or otherwise, and it's not particularly rare, as horses are still common in the world. It's more common in very rural areas or very urban areas, but they do exist. The main issue is training ,as while anyone can be trained to ride a horse, and horse cultures exist, most people do not know how. It's a technical skill many have not accomplished. It would primarily be useful in very specific niche operations, one might be airborne, where deploying with something lighter and that can live off the land, or travel over rougher terrain would be more useful. After a while though, such as when roads are eventually built, horses would be less important, only in the initial deployment or covering of ground. Going the less expected path or going through a path quickly are both really large advantages in military warfare, be it paratroopers landing, waterborne invasions or Hannibal crossing the alps, so it is a great advantage. Of course after this is done, you often abandon this method later on (soldiers only need to do a beach landing sparingly, or deploy with parachutes from aircraft etc.), so yeah it's meant for specific niche purposes.

It's difficult to explain without any videos or pictures or someone just seeing or doing it for themselves but, horses can stretch their legs out, go upwards or downwards more easily than a car, can step around things, and so on. Here is a picture of a rocky area. How do you suppose a car is supposed to get up there, let alone drive on top of those rocks without getting stuck in a crevice or falling through? A person can easily jump across what a vehicle would be stuck in, be it a rocky area or a mud puddle, and so can a horse or many other animals. As someone who has done a fair bit of jeeping, mountain biking and hiking on various trails, I mean it's obvious that a person can climb over all kinds of things a car or bike gets obviously stuck in. Not to mention it's easier to go that way on foot often. So a horse or mule in the same sort of situation can also usually travel along these irregular paths, that would otherwise be dangerous or impossible to travel via conventional means, and would still be stealthy and not exposed to enemy fire like aircraft would.

[Triplebaconation]

A trained rider would never jump over rocks like that, or probably even go there in the first place and risk an injured horse. A pack mule jumping lol.

It's been pretty thoroughly established what horses can do over thousands of years. Safe loads for horses, wagon capacities and team sizes are well documented. There's no need to resort to tortured analogy.

The general rule of thumb is that during a working day of 8 hours a horse can pull a cart or wagon 1.5 times its body weight over good surfaces at 3-4 mph, and much less weight over poorer roads or no roads at all. A wagon, of course, can't deal with obstacles better than a truck and is usually worse.

While mules and horses carrying riders or pack loads (safe 20-25% of body weight, also note that packing is a fairly involved skill) have certain advantages in very rough terrain (where in practice they'll be restricted to trails), these are irrelevant to Immoren's horse-drawn artillery, which will be worse than its mechanized equivalent in every way.

[Gallia-]

wheeze

air-mech cav strike

The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

Forces that are thrown into the attack piecemeal and uncoordinated have always been poor performers whether infantry or tank armies. Armies successfully employing even a semblance of combined arms warfare, the better the coordination between the different arms the better said armies performance, this fact has been true not only for 20th and 21st century warfare, but going all the way back to antiquity. The Korean War was no exception. Armor played a decisive role when utilized properly both during the early mobile phase and the later static phase throughout the entirely of the Korean War.

The US military was so good at combined arms that the light infantry 3rd Marine Division outperformed and outpaced most armor regiments in Korea lol.

[Sibauk]

By that description, there really isn’t any difference between a long range precision missile like the one NV is considering and a long range artillery shell as far as target acquisition is concerned. Depending on how NV is considering achieving loiter time, whether just having the missile coast around in a circle or slowly descend by some type of parachute, the loiter time difference between said proposed missile and a smart “sensor-fuse” submunition may be negligible.

NV mentioned it has a propfan. Its basically an UAV.

Smart submunitions need to be placed within 100-200 m of targets to hit (SADARM for e.g. is 150 m). This is more difficult for a small or moving target (SADARM was for battalion+ size targets and counterbattery). Also, slowly descending is not loitering - if no target is found within 100-200 m by the time it hits the ground, its a miss.

A command-guided missile on the other hand only requires a rough knowledge of the enemy's location as it can acquire targets itself. If it loses its target it can stay in the air and attack again.

Depending on the rules of engagement, properly identifying the target vehicles in question is probably going to happen either way first through the various ISTAR platforms one forces brings along which then feeds into the kill chain loop that justifies using said proposed missile or artillery or any weapons platform operational {AKA: in working order}, on hand and in range. Not always discussed, but the possibility exists that if the said proposed missile controller control is jammed, then accurate guidance is lost and therefore any advantaged by using a more expensive and therefore more complex weapon system is lost. Murphy doesn’t pick favorites.

Enemy, neutral, and friendly forces do not stay still while a weapon is in flight - this is the whole point of having a 'man-in-the-loop'. Smart submunitions cannot tell if a vehicle has already been knocked out, too.

Modern radio-controlled weapons are quite resistant to jamming - they frequency-hop and have a relatively wide bandwidth. A fiber-optic cable is unjammable.

Looking at it from an economics perceptive, I would say it’s less advantaged and more neutral. One expensive single use missile verses one heavier multi-use cheaper artillery tube that can fire hundreds, if not thousands of projectiles for the same cost allowing it to engage more than one target

I didn't claim that it would be cheaper.

Anyway, seekers are the most expensive component of a PGM - once you start putting them in artillery shells, they won't be much cheaper than missiles.

[Spirit of Hope]

No they used pack animals because that was all their was for them to use. The pack animals were supplied by local forces the SoF were linking up with. Notably as soon as the US had feet on the ground and were setting up bases and fighting in Afganistan they used trucks.



First none of your sources talk about hauling loads over 1.5 the horses weight for days at a time, nor do they mention the speed that it can be done at.

http://www.wagonteamster.com/html/faqs.html
https://horsefaqs.com/how-much-weight-c ... on-wheels/ gives a higher ration (2-3 but requires roads)
https://horserookie.com/how-much-weight ... orse-pull/ (again notes 1.5 for long haul, higher for short hall)
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/ ... 8f2ebe6217 saying the massive weights pulled was measured in feet

Also the weight given for the vehicle in my example was the cargo weight, not the weight of the vehicle itself.

As to speed, the truck was still 20 times faster not including rest time, even if you double the horses speed the truck is still 10 times faster.



Even with out weight the truck is going to be faster than the horse, even over rough terrain. The amount of terrain a horse can travel that a truck or jeep can't is small. Also you can't move at high speeds on a horse over rough terrain unless you want to have injured/dead horses and riders.

IIRC a horses ground pressure is higher than a car or trucks, 75 psi vs 20-30 psi.



Reduced fuel but greatly increased food and water needs, which aren't everywhere.

The number of places pack animals can go that vehicles can't is small. While a horse can jump it can't do so while pulling or carrying a heavy load.



Notably horse mounted police are rare, largely work in cities where they make the officers visible in crowds, and crowds visible to officers, are used in incredibly small numbers, and aren't used often in pursuit situations. I mean the Canadian Mounties don't use horse for regular duties, and haven't since the 1930's.

So yeah if you want to use an incredibly small number of horses to transport special forces while they are outside of logistical support feel free. But that is a rather niche use.

Your numbers show two main things, one that the figure differs from DEAD weight vs. the weight on wheels, and second one of your sources says "That’s right: pairing horses increases load capability, or how much weight they can pull together. If one horse can pull a cart weighing 6,000 lbs, two horses should be able to pull 12,000 lbs, right? If those horses are working together, they can actually pull 18,000 lbs — three times the load one horse working alone can pull." The numbers vary so much based on how the animal is pulling or carrying the weight. If it's on it's back or dragged behind it, it will be far less than if it's in a cart. A human can push or pull a very heavy cart by their bare hands, or even push a car if need be, so that's not that crazy. If a full grown adult male can push a car that's not in break, and it's only a few thousand pounds, then a horse definitely can pull one. If it's on wheels, you can reasonably expect a horse to pull several thousand pounds at speed for a distance of 10's of miles a day, easy, considering that a human can as well. People have pushed their cars several miles to get to rest stops before.

Yes the source does say that, right after the big bolded part about the average being 1.5 times their bodyweight for long distance. You know the part that is bolded.

I absolutely believe horses can pull thousands of pounds, notice my original math has each horse pulling 3,000 pounds.

While humans have pushed cars they don't do it fast and they do it over roads.

ANYWAYS. As I said before, the main advantage is not really raw tonnage, but maneuverability, the same as humans. You can cover terrain much more easily that vehicles can't, thus going the path that is least likely to expose you to enemy fire.

Except as I have routinely pointed out that isn't really the case. Armored vehicles, and their accompanying trucks have passed through or fought through basically every type of terrain in the world. Mountain, forrest, desert, jungle a truck has carried troops and supplies there.

The reason why helicopters don't go up super high in mountains and they send in infantry instead, or soldiers on horses/with pack mules, is for this reason.

When in recent memory has a modern military used horses and pack animals instead of helicopters? The first SF guys into Afghanistan don't count because they were helicoptered in, and then given horses by the local forces they were joining up with.

The higher pressure for their hooves is a good thing, as it means the smaller surface area can be balanced in a smaller area, thus allowing for less space in between obstacles to still allow a horse to travel. Horses can also jump over or step over large obstacles, where as a wheeled vehicle must always remain flat on the ground in most circumstances, reducing it's maneuverability.

A truck doesn't have to remain flat on the ground, especially all wheel drive big wheeled military trucks. If the ground is rough enough that they, or fully tracked vehicles, can't traverse it at all then pack animals aren't going to be moving fast through the terrain.

Horses and camels are often used in deserts, mountains, urban areas and rural areas, be it by police or otherwise, and it's not particularly rare, as horses are still common in the world. It's more common in very rural areas or very urban areas, but they do exist. The main issue is training ,as while anyone can be trained to ride a horse, and horse cultures exist, most people do not know how. It's a technical skill many have not accomplished. It would primarily be useful in very specific niche operations, one might be airborne, where deploying with something lighter and that can live off the land, or travel over rougher terrain would be more useful.

How are the airborne troops getting horses? They aren't going to be dropping with then, and there are very few places in the world where there are enough horses to requisition to equip even a company of paratroopers. Meanwhile that can't be said of cars and trucks.

As to living of the land, that can only be done by a very small number of horses, in certain parts of the world, only during some parts of the year.

After a while though, such as when roads are eventually built, horses would be less important, only in the initial deployment or covering of ground.

Basically everywhere humans live has roads, they are one of those things we've been building for a while now. There almost literally all over the world, and where there aren't roads there isn't any significant human population.

Going the less expected path or going through a path quickly are both really large advantages in military warfare, be it paratroopers landing, waterborne invasions or Hannibal crossing the alps, so it is a great advantage. Of course after this is done, you often abandon this method later on (soldiers only need to do a beach landing sparingly, or deploy with parachutes from aircraft etc.), so yeah it's meant for specific niche purposes.

Horses niche is somewhere around not being able to get anything better, probably because you are attached to indigenous forces who can't get anything better. Or maybe as horse stew.

It's difficult to explain without any videos or pictures or someone just seeing or doing it for themselves but, horses can stretch their legs out, go upwards or downwards more easily than a car, can step around things, and so on. Here is a picture of a rocky area. How do you suppose a car is supposed to get up there, let alone drive on top of those rocks without getting stuck in a crevice or falling through? A person can easily jump across what a vehicle would be stuck in, be it a rocky area or a mud puddle, and so can a horse or many other animals.

Why does a truck need to go over that specific crevasse that a person is jumping over? Can a truck drive over that type of terrain? Absolutely, slow down, get a ground guide, and preform route recon. Your convoy isn't going to be noticeably slower than humans and pack animals going over the same terrain, will be able to carry much more equipment, and will be able to go much faster when off that terrain.

As someone who has done a fair bit of jeeping, mountain biking and hiking on various trails, I mean it's obvious that a person can climb over all kinds of things a car or bike gets obviously stuck in. Not to mention it's easier to go that way on foot often. So a horse or mule in the same sort of situation can also usually travel along these irregular paths, that would otherwise be dangerous or impossible to travel via conventional means, and would still be stealthy and not exposed to enemy fire like aircraft would.

Hiking isn't combat movement, it isn't about closing with the enemy it is about going cool places and seeing cool things. But besides that, yes you should be dismounting from vehicles as you approach the enemy and sometimes that means marching on foot for a couple of miles. However for a couple of miles of movement you don't need horses. If you can't get a truck within a couple of miles, we are back at the question of why you are fighting there.

In conclusion:
Horses, and other pack animals, are only useful if you literally can't get anything better, probably because you are special forces operating in a remote area with local forces that don't have anything better. For every other type of military unit, use your transport (truck, APC, helicopter, or plane) to get within a few miles of the enemy, and then close on foot. Which is what you should be doing because closing with infantry on foot is how you fight.

[Purpelia]

NV mentioned it has a propfan. Its basically an UAV.

Which begs the obvious question why he is sending an expensive not-UAV to it's death instead of taking a regular UAV and strapping some comparatively cheaper missiles under its wings which would make it reusable and generally more cost effective.

[New Vihenia]

Which begs the obvious question why he is sending an expensive not-UAV to it's death instead of taking a regular UAV and strapping some comparatively cheaper missiles under its wings which would make it reusable and generally more cost effective.

so when enemy shoot it down it destroys both the UAV+the missile, i lost both the UAV+Multiple missiles it carries.

There unfortunately no doctrine yet on Loitering munitions but basically it allows infantry squad a force multiplier, more rapid response to situation that requires standoff capability. Plus for special forces that's a good side.

[Purpelia]

Which begs the obvious question why he is sending an expensive not-UAV to it's death instead of taking a regular UAV and strapping some comparatively cheaper missiles under its wings which would make it reusable and generally more cost effective.

so when enemy shoot it down it destroys both the UAV+the missile, i lost both the UAV+Multiple missiles it carries.

There unfortunately no doctrine yet on Loitering munitions but basically it allows infantry squad a force multiplier, more rapid response to situation that requires standoff capability. Plus for special forces that's a good side.

But does an infantry squad ever need standoff capability? Is that role not better handled by organization levels that actually have intelligence and concerns that far away?

[New Vihenia]

But does an infantry squad ever need standoff capability? Is that role not better handled by organization levels that actually have intelligence and concerns that far away?

Isn't Special forces are part of that organization ?

[Gallia-]

NV is basically right.

Oldthinker Purp unbellyfeel newthink.

[Purpelia]

But does an infantry squad ever need standoff capability? Is that role not better handled by organization levels that actually have intelligence and concerns that far away?

Isn't Special forces are part of that organization ?

Not really. I mean, is a special forces unit really going to be engage enemies at greater ranges than regular infantry? They might be that far in front of the regular army sure, but they still won't be fighting over tens of kilometers.
From my perspective you are basically arguing for issuing each infantry platoon with an attached howitzer. As opposed to keeping those in an artillery battery to be used by commanders that actually see that far away and know what's happening that far away and are equipped to make decisions on how to deal with it.

[Gallia-]

From my perspective you are basically arguing for issuing each infantry platoon with an attached howitzer.

Such highly advanced thinking comes to us from Anno Domini 1943.

Except it was more like a battery of howitzers. Or heavy mortars.

[Austrasien]

Which begs the obvious question why he is sending an expensive not-UAV to it's death instead of taking a regular UAV and strapping some comparatively cheaper missiles under its wings which would make it reusable and generally more cost effective.

so when enemy shoot it down it destroys both the UAV+the missile, i lost both the UAV+Multiple missiles it carries.

There unfortunately no doctrine yet on Loitering munitions but basically it allows infantry squad a force multiplier, more rapid response to situation that requires standoff capability. Plus for special forces that's a good side.

Help I can't find my post So apologies if this is repetitive.

Anyway, it would make the most sense to centralize the launchers at perhaps the battalion level. Since it is already possible for someone to assume direct control, it wouldn't be a big step to fire the missile from a TEL, fly to the requested area and then bring it under the FO's (there isn't really good terminology here because as you say doctrine is not yet developed) control. Even at the modern extended frontages of brigades, 3-4 launchers should be able to ensure no one on the front is ever more than a 5-10 km from a loitering missile launcher and under a minute of flight away.

Putting it on someone's shoulder is not adding any significant capability to the missile. The CLU could be compacted into a handheld thermal scope/binoculars. Or even functionally integrated into other infantry and vehicle weapon sights.

[Gallia-]

there isn't really good terminology here because as you say doctrine is not yet developed

"Forward pass" works.

[Sibauk]

NV mentioned it has a propfan. Its basically an UAV.

Which begs the obvious question why he is sending an expensive not-UAV to it's death instead of taking a regular UAV and strapping some comparatively cheaper missiles under its wings which would make it reusable and generally more cost effective.

The ground equipment and personnel needed to operate regular UAVs are actually quite expensive - the archetypal Predator costs ~5 million to buy and ~1200 per flight hour in US service.

Anyway, you can't save too much on the missile for the regular UAV without giving up range and precision. A Hellfire costs ~100 thousand and a Spike NLOS ~200 thousand, but the former has less than half the range of the latter.

[Sevvania]

Here is a picture of a rocky area. How do you suppose a car is supposed to get up there

Lookit 'em go

wheeze

air-mech cav strike

Pretty sure that was the plot to Rise of Skywalker

[Immoren]

From my perspective you are basically arguing for issuing each infantry platoon with an attached howitzer. As opposed to keeping those in an artillery battery to be used by commanders that actually see that far away and know what's happening that far away and are equipped to make decisions on how to deal with it.

You give entire battery for each infantry platoon, because you give each infantry platoon organic forward observer and each forward observer will get command authority of some battery or other during mission. [smort]

[Manokan Republic]

I don't see any logic or practicality in issuing an artillery ranged weapon to anyone but artillery forces as the only benefit it provides them is the ability to engage targets at ranges well beyond those that they should be concerning them self with. Front line infantry have better things to do (like shoot at stuff close to them) than guide in UAV's and rockets at artillery ranges. Thus, the only way I see this being employed is as an addition to the regular artillery forces. And whilst I can see it being useful in that application I do not see it being more useful than alternatives we already have such as various forms of smart submunitions or even just saturation fire from a MLRS that can hit whole formations at that range.

A command-guided missile has 3 major advantages over smart submunitions from gun artillery:

1. The missile can loiter and observe, so the target does not need to be acquired first. The missile can be fired into an area with suspected enemy presence first and a target acquired later.

2. The missile is in the operator's control throughout flight and any target visually acquired by the operator themself. This allows the missile to be used in closer proximity to neutral or friendly forces than artillery - currently smart submunitions are not capable of differentiating between different types of vehicles.

3. The missile does not require a relatively heavy gun to launch making it easier for light forces to bring along.

Compared to MRLS, command-guided missiles are more precise and lower volume - this also means it weighs less.

My question would largely be how the missile is communicating over those ranges, and in loiter mode how it spots targets/is controlled by the user. There are celerity difficulties with a 60km AT missile, but the idea of a 60km AT missile isn't bad.

Spike NLOS can go 25 km and is radio-controlled. There were a number of longer-ranged missiles using fiber-optic cables under development. Alas all of them died except for the Japanese Type 96 and Serbian ALAS.

Yesh! The longer range gives a better overlap, so for example the HIMARS can get all the way out to 300 miles, and has a minimum range of about 1.2 miles, which is fairly comparable to artillery, but givens it a longer maximum range. The longer range is not only it's own advantage, but gives greater overlap capabilities; an artillery piece 150 miles away from infantry in need couldn't provide assistance, and so you would need more artillery that was closer range to infantry to support them. In the same 300 mile radius, you would need, with artillery that only had a 20 mile radius, 225 times the amount of artillery to cover that same area, and so if you had an equivalent amount of rocket artillery, they could all provide assistance to units within that 300 miles radius, giving you 225 times the firepower, in ideal circumstances. The greater overlap of fire means firebases can be established way behind frontlines, and wouldn't have to move as often to keep up with protecting infantry. Granted, ranges of 40-150 miles would probably be more common, but still the greater overlap of fire would exponentially increase how many artillery units you could have firing on any given location in any point in time. So if you have 10 infantry units in the field and only one came under attack, they would have support from 10 rocket pieces, instead of just 1 normal artillery piece, essentially, increasing the firepower in any given firefight.

Rocket artillery also generally has larger payloads, as the warhead size can be much larger in a missile than artillery piece, and can be used in a broader range of roles, including potentially anti-aircraft or armor purposes, assuming the right warhead or missile is used. It's primary drawback is that each round is more expensive, but given the rising cost of smart munitions for artillery pieces, and artillery rounds in general, this may not be as big of an issue.

[Manokan Republic]

wheeze

air-mech cav strike

Now he's getting it.




Although in all seriousness this has been done before and is actually fairly effective. The problem is needing to know how to care for and ride horses. Another funny thing is that fish and chickens or turkeys are often air dropped with no parachutes. I can't find any good pictures of it, but this is apparently a thing that people in Arkansas do.

[Manokan Republic]

so when enemy shoot it down it destroys both the UAV+the missile, i lost both the UAV+Multiple missiles it carries.

There unfortunately no doctrine yet on Loitering munitions but basically it allows infantry squad a force multiplier, more rapid response to situation that requires standoff capability. Plus for special forces that's a good side.

But does an infantry squad ever need standoff capability? Is that role not better handled by organization levels that actually have intelligence and concerns that far away?

I mean it's a nice back up to have if you can get it, or just long range abilities in general. My ideal weapon for this would be the 1.7 pound, 1.25 mile range 40mm grenade launched laser-guided pike missile, meant to attack enemies in bunkers or at long range with like .50 caliber and 20mm machine guns and whatnot. I know it's a day after april fools day, but it's real!

[Manokan Republic]

Your numbers show two main things, one that the figure differs from DEAD weight vs. the weight on wheels, and second one of your sources says "That’s right: pairing horses increases load capability, or how much weight they can pull together. If one horse can pull a cart weighing 6,000 lbs, two horses should be able to pull 12,000 lbs, right? If those horses are working together, they can actually pull 18,000 lbs — three times the load one horse working alone can pull." The numbers vary so much based on how the animal is pulling or carrying the weight. If it's on it's back or dragged behind it, it will be far less than if it's in a cart. A human can push or pull a very heavy cart by their bare hands, or even push a car if need be, so that's not that crazy. If a full grown adult male can push a car that's not in break, and it's only a few thousand pounds, then a horse definitely can pull one. If it's on wheels, you can reasonably expect a horse to pull several thousand pounds at speed for a distance of 10's of miles a day, easy, considering that a human can as well. People have pushed their cars several miles to get to rest stops before.

Yes the source does say that, right after the big bolded part about the average being 1.5 times their bodyweight for long distance. You know the part that is bolded.

I absolutely believe horses can pull thousands of pounds, notice my original math has each horse pulling 3,000 pounds.

While humans have pushed cars they don't do it fast and they do it over roads.

ANYWAYS. As I said before, the main advantage is not really raw tonnage, but maneuverability, the same as humans. You can cover terrain much more easily that vehicles can't, thus going the path that is least likely to expose you to enemy fire.

Except as I have routinely pointed out that isn't really the case. Armored vehicles, and their accompanying trucks have passed through or fought through basically every type of terrain in the world. Mountain, forrest, desert, jungle a truck has carried troops and supplies there.

The reason why helicopters don't go up super high in mountains and they send in infantry instead, or soldiers on horses/with pack mules, is for this reason.

When in recent memory has a modern military used horses and pack animals instead of helicopters? The first SF guys into Afghanistan don't count because they were helicoptered in, and then given horses by the local forces they were joining up with.

The higher pressure for their hooves is a good thing, as it means the smaller surface area can be balanced in a smaller area, thus allowing for less space in between obstacles to still allow a horse to travel. Horses can also jump over or step over large obstacles, where as a wheeled vehicle must always remain flat on the ground in most circumstances, reducing it's maneuverability.

A truck doesn't have to remain flat on the ground, especially all wheel drive big wheeled military trucks. If the ground is rough enough that they, or fully tracked vehicles, can't traverse it at all then pack animals aren't going to be moving fast through the terrain.

Horses and camels are often used in deserts, mountains, urban areas and rural areas, be it by police or otherwise, and it's not particularly rare, as horses are still common in the world. It's more common in very rural areas or very urban areas, but they do exist. The main issue is training ,as while anyone can be trained to ride a horse, and horse cultures exist, most people do not know how. It's a technical skill many have not accomplished. It would primarily be useful in very specific niche operations, one might be airborne, where deploying with something lighter and that can live off the land, or travel over rougher terrain would be more useful.

How are the airborne troops getting horses? They aren't going to be dropping with then, and there are very few places in the world where there are enough horses to requisition to equip even a company of paratroopers. Meanwhile that can't be said of cars and trucks.

As to living of the land, that can only be done by a very small number of horses, in certain parts of the world, only during some parts of the year.

After a while though, such as when roads are eventually built, horses would be less important, only in the initial deployment or covering of ground.

Basically everywhere humans live has roads, they are one of those things we've been building for a while now. There almost literally all over the world, and where there aren't roads there isn't any significant human population.

Going the less expected path or going through a path quickly are both really large advantages in military warfare, be it paratroopers landing, waterborne invasions or Hannibal crossing the alps, so it is a great advantage. Of course after this is done, you often abandon this method later on (soldiers only need to do a beach landing sparingly, or deploy with parachutes from aircraft etc.), so yeah it's meant for specific niche purposes.

Horses niche is somewhere around not being able to get anything better, probably because you are attached to indigenous forces who can't get anything better. Or maybe as horse stew.

It's difficult to explain without any videos or pictures or someone just seeing or doing it for themselves but, horses can stretch their legs out, go upwards or downwards more easily than a car, can step around things, and so on. Here is a picture of a rocky area. How do you suppose a car is supposed to get up there, let alone drive on top of those rocks without getting stuck in a crevice or falling through? A person can easily jump across what a vehicle would be stuck in, be it a rocky area or a mud puddle, and so can a horse or many other animals.

Why does a truck need to go over that specific crevasse that a person is jumping over? Can a truck drive over that type of terrain? Absolutely, slow down, get a ground guide, and preform route recon. Your convoy isn't going to be noticeably slower than humans and pack animals going over the same terrain, will be able to carry much more equipment, and will be able to go much faster when off that terrain.

As someone who has done a fair bit of jeeping, mountain biking and hiking on various trails, I mean it's obvious that a person can climb over all kinds of things a car or bike gets obviously stuck in. Not to mention it's easier to go that way on foot often. So a horse or mule in the same sort of situation can also usually travel along these irregular paths, that would otherwise be dangerous or impossible to travel via conventional means, and would still be stealthy and not exposed to enemy fire like aircraft would.

Hiking isn't combat movement, it isn't about closing with the enemy it is about going cool places and seeing cool things. But besides that, yes you should be dismounting from vehicles as you approach the enemy and sometimes that means marching on foot for a couple of miles. However for a couple of miles of movement you don't need horses. If you can't get a truck within a couple of miles, we are back at the question of why you are fighting there.

In conclusion:
Horses, and other pack animals, are only useful if you literally can't get anything better, probably because you are special forces operating in a remote area with local forces that don't have anything better. For every other type of military unit, use your transport (truck, APC, helicopter, or plane) to get within a few miles of the enemy, and then close on foot. Which is what you should be doing because closing with infantry on foot is how you fight.

Again, you're not getting there's dead-weight vs. pulling on wheels. Horses can carry up to the weight of cars even at a high speed for prolonged periods of time, but the main thing I was trying to focus on what they would actually be used for is maneuvering over rough terrain. Jumping around on rocks and whatnot is far easier than trying to use a 10-20 ton vehicle. You wouldn't carry all that weight behind you on a horse with a cart presumably. If you moved on the same terrain as cars, or roads, you could carry probably about half the weight at half the speed assuming 2-4 horses per cart. You rarely see military convoys going at top speed, so generally it's like 40 mph or so. This would be a less efficient use of horses though, which is to maneuver up on the mountains and whatnot where vehicles can't realistically go.

Tons and tons of environments are not suitable for vehicles, be them swamps, jungles, densely packed forests, mountains, generally rocky or bumpy areas or just where there's a lot of obstacles. You can only go in to those terrain once a road is built first. A tank can be stuck in this little of mud. Dredging through a swamp or marshland is going to prove rather tough for many armored vehicles. Horses get stuck in mud,but they need to be in REALLY deep. Even on paths that have been built up by humans over time, they're still often too small for vehicles to travel, but a horse or mule easily could. It's not difficult to imagine situations where a mule or horse would be better, or going in on foot etc. than a vehicle. This is the bane of modern warfare, as infantry are the biggest bottleneck of your forces, as not much has changed about how they move, or how much weight they can carry and so on. With mech robot suits or something, this may change, until then the options are limited to niche uses and there's really no great solution.

[Spirit of Hope]

-snip-

Again, you're not getting there's dead-weight vs. pulling on wheels. Horses can carry up to the weight of cars even at a high speed for prolonged periods of time, but the main thing I was trying to focus on what they would actually be used for is maneuvering over rough terrain. Jumping around on rocks and whatnot is far easier than trying to use a 10-20 ton vehicle. You wouldn't carry all that weight behind you on a horse with a cart presumably. If you moved on the same terrain as cars, or roads, you could carry probably about half the weight at half the speed assuming 2-4 horses per cart. You rarely see military convoys going at top speed, so generally it's like 40 mph or so. This would be a less efficient use of horses though, which is to maneuver up on the mountains and whatnot where vehicles can't realistically go.

A draft horse can pull a dead weight along the ground (draft) equal to 1/10 their body weight for 8 hours a day.

How much weight can a horse pull on wheels? To determine the weight of the horse, use the following guidelines. On a well-paved highway, most horses can carry loads that are three times their own horse weight. On a more or less solid dirt road, you can load the carriage on about two horse masses.

Horses can typically pull about 1/10 of their body weight in “dead weight,” such as a plow or fallen log. If you add wheels to the load (e.g. put a log on a cart), an average horse can then pull 1.5 times its body weight over a longer distance.

I'm pretty sure my saying 1.5 times their weight being pulled on wheels over rough terrain is safe, higher if they are working on a road.

As to horses being more maneuverable over rough terrain again, I disagree.

Tons and tons of environments are not suitable for vehicles, be them swamps, jungles, densely packed forests, mountains, generally rocky or bumpy areas or just where there's a lot of obstacles.

Except trucks, motor vehicles, and armored vehicles have been operating in all of those terrains for decades. All of those terrain types have had trucks carrying troops and supplies in them, and armored vehicles fighting in them. The amount of terrain in which a well designed motor vehicle truly can't pass is rather small. And such terrain is going to be difficult and dangerous to get through with horses or other pack animals.

You can only go in to those terrain once a road is built first. A tank can be stuck in this little of mud.

That tank is so stuck they drive it out without assistance. Oh look, a horse stuck in the mud. Again horses have higher ground pressure which is bad for mud.

Dredging through a swamp or marshland is going to prove rather tough for many armored vehicles. Horses get stuck in mud,but they need to be in REALLY deep. Even on paths that have been built up by humans over time, they're still often too small for vehicles to travel, but a horse or mule easily could.

Why yes scenic paths built specifically for horses and pack animals probably aren't going to carry vehicles.

It's not difficult to imagine situations where a mule or horse would be better, or going in on foot etc. than a vehicle. This is the bane of modern warfare, as infantry are the biggest bottleneck of your forces, as not much has changed about how they move, or how much weight they can carry and so on. With mech robot suits or something, this may change, until then the options are limited to niche uses and there's really no great solution.

Infantry don't move themselves on foot strategically or operationally. They move on foot tactically, and that is less to do with terrain movement restrictions and more to do with the fact that on foot fighting is what infantry are for. But for tactical movements you don't want to bring a horse along, there just a liability in the face of enemy weapons.

I think the telling thing in this argument is that the US military doesn't train, equip or maintain any horse mounted combat units. They use dolphins, they use dogs, but they don't use horses. When you look for military units using horses in the modern day you don't find any outside of ceremonial roles.

[Triplebaconation]

I can't help but wonder if those folks are on mules because motorized vehicles are legally prohibited within the Grand Canyon.

[Manokan Republic]

I can't help but wonder if those folks are on mules because motorized vehicles are legally prohibited within the Grand Canyon.

There's no way a humvee, or halftrack, or tank could possibly fit up the majority of those trails. The wheelbase is at least 7 feet apart, and even things like motorcycles show insanely high accident and death rates, as do bicycles. The safest and easiest thing they found, with the fewest accidents, was to use animals or hike on foot. The narrow winding trails, tons of obstacles, rocky environment and so on made it far easier, as well as the intuitive and instinctive sense to stop and start that an animal has, vs. a car or vehicle that might continue on and fly off a cliff or something by accident.

The reason why it's banned from general use is because of how dangerous it is, not because you could realistically fit a motor vehicle on those trails. Again, common sense should prevail in these sorts of situations, a wheeled vehicle is just not viable in many of these terrains.

[Sevvania]

I can't help but wonder if those folks are on mules because motorized vehicles are legally prohibited within the Grand Canyon.

He go where he want and where he want is up.