Last edited:
Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
That's something I never thought I would see. I wonder who had the imagination to come up with the idea.
Still worked for the Japanese in Malaya, though.
EDIT: That reminds me, it might be good for colonial troops to use in Malaya and other colonies in Southeast Asia.
Last edited:
What's the charge if you're caught with your feet up while your 7 mates are doing all the work?
Ian_W
Banned
The issue the Committee has with bicycle troops is they cannot carry sufficient stores, equipment and so on to hold a position after it is taken, and if a man is loaded down with such then a bicycle is overloaded.
This especially applies to machine-guns and the lighter sorts of guns.
The Erskine Childers "War and the Arme Blanche" is pretty much a treatment of your question though with a cavalry focus. Written in 1910 it uses examples from the US civil war up to the Russo-Japanese war. This book is a screed strongly advocating converting the existing cavalry into mounted rifles, more machine guns and better use of terrain. It advocates for a UK force structure suitable for a major land war in Europe.
"War and the Arme Blanche" is available on Gutenberg.
In relation to replacing cavalry with bicycle troopers that is correct but infantry can move only at the pace of a horse drawn wagon and/or pack horse that carries the stores and machine guns etc. The bicycle lets infantry troops match that without such great fatigue or injury. The pace of the bicycle is far slower than quasi cavalry and arrive less fatigued and with slightly more equipment that they could on foot. Also there is the option of occasionally pressing on at greater speed when needed and in reconnaissance in lighter order by some. There would be a need for officers, at all ranks, to appreciate the limitations and not use them at quasi cavalry rates and have a system to treat the bicycles as consumable items with a reserve upon which to draw when the originals have to be abandoned for tactical reasons. Troops need the training in maintenance and access to tools etc. for small repairs.
The Italian Army was so taken with bicycle troops that they maintained them as an integral part of their army well post war and they were clear that they still needed cavalry on horses for cavalry work and the bicycle troops for infantry mobility.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
All of the British Cavalry Regiments in 1914 were effectively mounted riflemen and had been since at least the Boer War and unlike their continental peers (who carried carbine versions of their nations rifles) carried the same rifle as the Infantry - the SMLE . Each Cavalry Regiment (Battalion for those hard of Commonwealth) - which numbered about 550 men was intended to have 6 Vicker's machine guns but pre war penny pinching had reduced this to just 2 (I believe that it was the same for Infantry Regiments).
Later on they would get the Hotchkiss M1909 Machine guns as while heavy and not nearly as good an MMG they are a lot lighter than the Vicker's and British Production had ramped up after the French factory moved to Britain.
While they did carry swords - the very fine 1908 Cavalry sword or Lance (both perfected tools just as they were finally proved obsolete) - the Cavalry was intended to be able to move quickly cross country and then dismount and fight on foot.
It was not generally intended to fight by charging into Hand to Hand combat except in certain opportunistic situations - not against Machine guns, Shrapnel firing guns and magazine fed bolt action rifles.
Effectively a Cavalry Regiment was about half the fighting power of an Infantry Regiment with the Cavalry Brigade having about 1/3rd the fighting power of an Infantry Brigade. Remembering that every 4th man did not dismount and fight but looked after his and 3 other men's horses.
Its strengths being that it moves 3 x faster than foot Infantry who arrived less fatigued than a foot unit having force marched and it often proved that getting somewhere faster with less was often a battle winner (or as was often the case preventing a battle being lost).
No one expected WW1 to be a long drawn out trench battle but to be a war of maneuver which is why the British had as many Cavalry Brigades (6 Reg and 14 Yeo) as they had Infantry Divisions (6 Reg and 14 TA).
Without hindsight I cannot see this changing.
What would happen when the war became a trench war is each Cavalry Brigade would form a composite 'Infantry Battalion' so that they could take their turn in the line and send their Swords/Lances back to their depots in the UK.
The ratio of Cavalry unit to Infantry unit would of course change as the Army rapidly expanded.
All I would change in this pre war period is the ability to equip the units with more Machine guns earlier (at least the 6 planned) and as I mentioned earlier try to get the Lewis into Mass production to provide Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery units with a handy reliable LMG in large numbers so as to equip the weapon down to Artillery Battery, Cavalry Troop and Infantry Platoon level.
Now there is no way to say this that isn't going to offend someone, but there has always been a suspicion amoungst historians, and in the army, that the prevalence of Cavalry Officers in the higher echelons, and the favouritism for Mounted Horse, had a lot to do with a certain politician preferring how shall we say men in tight fitting riding breeches.
(Its hard to find anything resembling an actual source as everyone seems to still be going out of their way to say it directly)
(Its hard to find anything resembling an actual source as everyone seems to still be going out of their way to say it directly)
Cryhavoc101
Donor
You can take the boy out of a Public School but......well no need to finish that one
I cannot say if the above is true or not but the fact remains that in 1914 (and for many army's in 1939 as well) the quickest way to get a Soldier and his equipment cross country was on the back of a horse.
So I suspect that practical reasons had more to do with it
Driftless
Donor
Most armies used horse holders in battle. They might tie them off on an overnight bivouac, or break in a march.
Tradition!
And you can't call out to a stake 'hey Bob, bring the horses forward' and expect it to do anything. Sure, Private Bob may be a shiftless layabout, but still follows most directions better than an inanimate object.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Dismounted infantry be they horse or truck mounted do not simply abandon their transport
What tends to happen is the unit advances to a 'drop off point' near the forward edge of the battle area, dismounts and then the horse handlers / motor transport drivers take their 'charges' back to a relative place of safety
From here they wait and can come forward to meet the dismounts or if the location comes under threat they can move location
Bicycles while certainly cheaper and not nearly as evil as a horse, do not allow for the above - where it may become useful is for a garrison or some such in the place of Horses where they are not expected to move cross country etc.