Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.

DJP

naraic said:
The Germans had a subsidised stud system in place before the war.

The big question is if British army wants to have a stud service that's efficient it will probably crowd out civilian horse breeders. Yes the horses may be a little more appropriate for army use but the total capacity will be similar.

It's my understanding that the reason behind the level of strain on the horses was due to railway failures.

I wonder if stockpiles of light rail for the army engineeers would be a more efficient way to do stuff.
Click to expand...
Yes, your right the total peace time requirement for horses will be roughly the same regardless of who breeds them. A military breeding program might improve the quality but at the expense of breeders producing horses for the wider economy. It might help with bean counting but once a war starts the remounts will be swiftly used up and the overall situation and the need for horse flesh will be the same.
A recognition of the need to move supplies from the rail head to he front and as you suggest a stockpile of narrow gauge light railway that could be swiftly layed behind the army be a better investment.
I suppose the big question would this have helped in the Boer war, because if it wouldn't then it's a solution for a need that didn't exist.
I need to remember when looking at numbers of horses just how different 1903 was and the national dependency on the horse for tran and working the land.
Thanks Dave
 

naraic

A lot of railways were damaged destroyed in the boer war.

I vaguely remember a story of a destroyed railway bridge, a temporary bridge and 500 horses held at the bridge to unload the train and move the supplies over to the other side of the bridge. The empty train then crossed the bridge and was reloaded.

A lot of Railway bridges were destroyed in the boer war and temporary rails had to be laid as replacement. There was one point where one third of the horses and mules in theater were replacing damaged rail way lines.

My initial train of thought was light rail to ease logistics but looking at the boer war normal rail way equipment might be preferable to replace and extend railines.

Its worth noting that the French acted very quickly in July 1914 to ramp up their light railway options (buying the products of many British factories). In August 1914 the British army had to buy a lot of American light rail at a much higher price (they could not call priority over allied forces in British factories).

You mention the fall in the national stock of horses between 1904 and 1914. I wonder if there should have been a panic in the UK about this?
 
Last edited:

PMN1

DJP said:
Yes, your right the total peace time requirement for horses will be roughly the same regardless of who breeds them. A military breeding program might improve the quality but at the expense of breeders producing horses for the wider economy. It might help with bean counting but once a war starts the remounts will be swiftly used up and the overall situation and the need for horse flesh will be the same.
A recognition of the need to move supplies from the rail head to he front and as you suggest a stockpile of narrow gauge light railway that could be swiftly layed behind the army be a better investment.
I suppose the big question would this have helped in the Boer war, because if it wouldn't then it's a solution for a need that didn't exist.
I need to remember when looking at numbers of horses just how different 1903 was and the national dependency on the horse for tran and working the land.
Thanks Dave
Click to expand...

From what I understand, most of the hauling was done by oxen.

The few steam tractors that were used were judged to be far superior, being less prone to dieing and needing far less fuel aka food.

David Fletcher's British Military Transport 1829 to 1956 has a section on the use of traction engines in South Africa, they seemed to have done quite well and units throughout the war zone were clamouring for them.

Interestingly a report made after the action says that the Boers seems less inclined to attack traction engine convoys vs oxen hauled convoys and that the traction engines were a lot more hygienic than oxen which polluted the ground and water sources and had a tendency to die....20 to 25 per mile along some routes, with the attendant stench.
 

yulzari

FWIW my old Yeomanry regiment drew it's horses from the horses kept by the railways for local and internal haulage. They were subsidised to be kept for this role and were taken up for a fortnight each year for annual training. Some officers had their own mounts anyway.

An army stud implies that the output goes to the army for use but the numbers needed for a war far exceed those in peacetime use and the large excess is unaffordable unless they are put to civilian use in the meantime and Parliament would not be happy with the government competing with commercial breeders. Taking up horses from within the UK on mobilisation was to be a short term answer to needs and was to be followed up by remount purchases and import from abroad. If you rule the waves you can ship horses. If you are a land based power you have to breed them. It makes more sense for Britain to tide itself over with requisitioned and subsidised home horses until it's naval power brings more in from abroad. The fall in national horse stocks between the South African War and the Great War was balanced by a growth in the use of lorries which were even more useful.

Generally the planning was sensible. What it could not predict was the sheer volume of demand for horses and how long the war would last. When it was reviewed post WW1 the conclusion was to mechanise and abandon horses entirely which was eventually achieved even if my father found the Royal Signals still using horses in the 1930's when he enlisted.
 

ArtosStark

yulzari said:
If you rule the waves you can ship horses
Click to expand...
So, would a Dominion breeding program be possible? You would be looking at possibly months for them to arrive but you would avoid much of the problems with established breeders, as most of those in the dominions were relatively new and would be more likely to capitalize on a subsidy program than fight it.
 
marathag

marathag

For raising horses in the Dominions, they are not immune to supply and demand. What are the millions of horses doing, waiting for a war? Eating.
Pastures only go so far, if you expect them to called away at a moment's notice. Who is going to pay for that grain? Is there a subsidy at play?
 

ArtosStark

marathag said:
For raising horses in the Dominions, they are not immune to supply and demand. What are the millions of horses doing, waiting for a war? Eating.
Pastures only go so far, if you expect them to called away at a moment's notice. Who is going to pay for that grain? Is there a subsidy at play?
Click to expand...
Railways and freight and mail carriers in Canada would need horses same as in Britain. I presume that would hold true for the others. And I think that most breeders in the dominions would probably be open to a subsidy for having stock that fit military requirements while they are using it anyway.
 

ArtosStark

I would actually be more worried about transport. It would probably take about a month, if not longer for any significant animal reinforcements to make it to Europe from Canada. I assume it would take much longer and be much more expensive from Australia.
 

ArtosStark

Sorry to bring this thread back to life after so long. I have been researching WW1 a fair bit lately, and a common pattern emerges that I don't think has been mentioned here (though I could be wrong, I didn't re-read the whole thing).

One thing that keeps coming up in relation to war production during WW1 was the problems associated with loss of workers in important industries. I have seen very similar language used to describe this problem relating to shipbuilding, mining, agriculture and arms production. These are all pretty critical war industries. An important step to alleviating some of these issues would be a well set up system of reserved occupations. The British did do this when Conscription was implemented in 1916 but if they had a good idea of how many workers in what occupations and what industries they would need to successfully prosecute a war. Hopefully this would be regularly updated. A possible way to have this incorporated would be to use it in conjunction with the compulsory reserve (conscription lite) system that was suggested earlier in the thread. If enough people complain that their workers are being taken away from their work for reserve training, that could lead to a government survey of the economy and what occupations are critical in the event of war.
 

Cryhavoc101

Donor
ArtosStark said:
Sorry to bring this thread back to life after so long. I have been researching WW1 a fair bit lately, and a common pattern emerges that I don't think has been mentioned here (though I could be wrong, I didn't re-read the whole thing).

One thing that keeps coming up in relation to war production during WW1 was the problems associated with loss of workers in important industries. I have seen very similar language used to describe this problem relating to shipbuilding, mining, agriculture and arms production. These are all pretty critical war industries. An important step to alleviating some of these issues would be a well set up system of reserved occupations. The British did do this when Conscription was implemented in 1916 but if they had a good idea of how many workers in what occupations and what industries they would need to successfully prosecute a war. Hopefully this would be regularly updated. A possible way to have this incorporated would be to use it in conjunction with the compulsory reserve (conscription lite) system that was suggested earlier in the thread. If enough people complain that their workers are being taken away from their work for reserve training, that could lead to a government survey of the economy and what occupations are critical in the event of war.
Click to expand...

Its interesting and something that I learned recently, that France had no similar system in WW2 and its vital industries such as ship building etc was badly impacted by the recalling of reserves to the colours during the 8 months until the battle of France.

Also that the success of the Commando units was partially due to men in reserved occupations were allowed to volunteer to join the Commandos but not any of the 3 services - hence the high standards in those special units.

I am not sure though how the British would learn the hows and whys of such a system without the experience of WW1
 

ArtosStark

Cryhavoc101 said:
Its interesting and something that I learned recently, that France had no similar system in WW2 and its vital industries such as ship building etc was badly impacted by the recalling of reserves to the colours during the 8 months until the battle of France.

Also that the success of the Commando units was partially due to men in reserved occupations were allowed to volunteer to join the Commandos but not any of the 3 services - hence the high standards in those special units.

I am not sure though how the British would learn the hows and whys of such a system without the experience of WW1
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Another reason France was hurting in 1940.

Well, if they set one up covering compulsory service members, that might at least get the idea set into people’s minds. It would probably be full of holes but it could get a working system in place a few months earlier than OTL.
 

Ian Henderson

It's not true that France had no system of deferred call ups for critical workers in world war 2. At the outbreak of the war, 1.2 million workers who would otherwise have been called to the colors were kept at their jobs. The problem was, while everyone acknowledged that an exemption program was vital, it wasn't enacted into law until 1938, and many vital workers were not exempted. As a result, over 550,000 had to be taken out of the military and sent back to their jobs. So the plan existed, it was just badly implemented.
 

Riain

A lot of this stuff, things like manpower and sustaining horses etc, comes under the banner of war planning: that interface between politics, economics and military strategy. It took ww1 to show government and military's that this was needed, indeed it was totally crucial. Prior to ww1 military's made campaign plans, not looking upwards on its political and diplomatic impacts but downwards to make sure the tactics were working.
 

Cryhavoc101

Donor
Ian Henderson said:
It's not true that France had no system of deferred call ups for critical workers in world war 2. At the outbreak of the war, 1.2 million workers who would otherwise have been called to the colors were kept at their jobs. The problem was, while everyone acknowledged that an exemption program was vital, it wasn't enacted into law until 1938, and many vital workers were not exempted. As a result, over 550,000 had to be taken out of the military and sent back to their jobs. So the plan existed, it was just badly implemented.
Click to expand...

I based my statement on the interruption to the shipbuilding programs - which almost came to a halt

Of course it could be argued that for France ship building is not as critical as it was to the UK!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top