All of us have probably seen the series Band of Brothers. In one of the last episodes the men of Easy Company are driving along the Autobahn passing endless lines of Germans marching off to internment. One of the soldiers, Webster stands up in the back of the duce and a half and yells at the German officers, first about American industry and second on how they expected to win this war – they were still using horses!

The question is, “In light of Germany’s industrial might why the horses? The American Army (except for some instances in Italy and Burma) used no horses, had no horse drawn equipment, had no provisions for horse drawn equipment. Throughout the war Germany used the horse as they had done a hundred years before.

This is especially true in France. As the allies closed the Flaisse Gap the slaughter of horse and men was extreme. Why? Why did the mighty German Army rely on the horse instead of motorized transport?

I think the bottom line is that the German economy really wasn't all that industrially strong, certainly not compared to the US. The very fact that even in 1944 they had to rely on horse drawn transport showed they just didn't have the strength they wished they had. Another example is how many captured weapons they used. You hardly ever saw Allied units using captured equipment to a great extent, but the Germans, I heard it said, were the biggest pack of scavengers in the world, using everything from Russian guns to French tanks.

It seems to me that horses would be better than trucks in the harsh Russian winters. Also, German vehicle field maitenance was horrible. Oh, and you can always eat a horse.

The Germans, thank goodness, had several problems!!

1. They did not switch over to a full wartime economy until 1943-44!! They were still producing civilian items into '44.
2. There government was extremely fragmented, with hundreds of little fifedoms, each with its sacred manpower and/or manufacturing area, that no one else could touch, creating a huge waste of manpower, time and resources.
3. The Germans never standardized their trucks - numerous companies continued to build their own models of trucks, creating a huge spare-parts problem. Also many of their trucks were militarized civilian models - and tens-of -thousands littered Russia as they out ran their supply chain. The trucks wore out faster than they could build replacements. The USA standardized, for example, the 2-1/2 ton truck. There were minor differences in the cabs, and maybe small differences in engines, but basically there were the same truck built by several different companies (the same for the Sherman tank). The US and British militaries also built special trucks for military use, minimizing front-line use of "commercial" models.
4. Many Germans were farmers and used horses on their farms, Americans were in middle of a mechanization of the economy, and most young men knew how to operate and maintain vehicles - even farmers. The Americans were better at maintaining their equipment than their German counterparts.
5. The German bane, even today - they over-engineer everything!!!! Mercedes, BMW, Opel, etc., made great road vehicles, but it took specialists to maintain and repair them. See #4 above.

i once read that in 1939 the british army was the only fully mechanised army in the world,
in other words it could move every man and weapon by means of some sort of vehicle.

of course in 1939 the british army was relatively small,

the germans reliance on horse drawn transport is as far as im concerned the main reason their supply system was so poor. at a time when the allied armies were using huge numbers of standardised high quality trucks and lorries the germans needed horses.

as has been stated previously the german economy and industrial base was not as successful or geared up for war as that of the allies. they lacked the materials and facilities to produce the neccessary transport vehicles.

for example the british had bedford (a lorry maker) AEC (bus and heavy truck maker) making military designs from early in the war, the americans had a thousand and one factories knocking out duece and a halfs etc at a rate of hundreds a day. compare this with the germans making dozens of inferior civilian pattern vehicles with the odd military design thrown in.

cheers

joe

Add to the fact that central european horses could not tolerate a central russia winter (neither could German trucks) and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

Do not forget another huge factor...FEEDING THE HORSE!!!! I cannot remeber the number, but TONS of grain/feed was required to feed the horses. Add grooming and maintaince,(shoeing, etc) and it seems that trucks would have been easier to deal with!

Sean

Son of a Vet makes an excellent point! The TONS of grain feed, and tack needed to keep the horses going could not have been cost effective to efficient for the German Army. In a way the horses helped in the ultimate defeat of the Germans due to the drain on the military economy.

Yes , trucks were easier to deal with but the germans had a problem with their fuel reserves that's one of the main reasons that the use of horses during the last year of the war became more more intensive.

Greetz , Phil

The comments about the support requirements for horses is quite true. When a truck or tank is sitting in a reserve location they require only minimal support - enough fuel to be able to run the engine occassionally to keep the batteries charged. But horses still require feed, even when pastured

I have been reading books about the American Civil War and there was a good discussion on the requirements of horse-drawn transport. The number of wagons required just to carry fodder for teh horses was enormous, and in winter the requirements could exceed the actual useable load of teh convoy!!

Wow. How insightful. In all the years I've studied WW2 history, it never dawned on me as to why there were so many horses used, just that there were. Part of it I assumed was because they were better able to negotiate the muddy roads of eastern Europe easier than trucks, but I never thought of the problem of feed, especially in light of the scorched earth policy of the Soviets