35

I read random descriptions of Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, and I got the impression that besides tanks, the armies carried with them millions of horses and that the bulk of the soldiers were planned to reach Moscow and Caucasus on foot (which is really a feat even for a tourist).

Is my impression correct?

Peter Mortensen
  • 231
  • 1
  • 8
sofky
  • 459
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
    Millions of horses? Can you cite your sources? Have you checked the Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa ? – Lars Bosteen Nov 06 '17 at 08:38
  • 1
    @LarsBosteen It is over a million and I have seen a documentary about Stalingrad where a german soldier even mentions a cart driven by cows – sofky Nov 06 '17 at 08:51
  • 1
    Wiki cites 600-700,000 horses. The link cited in the answer by Jos cites 625,000 (see https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25500). The other link from Jos which mentions horses refers to the whole war (and it's not entirely clear what is meant by 'an average of'). This next link https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=2486 gives 600-750,000 horses. – Lars Bosteen Nov 06 '17 at 09:19
  • 1
    @LarsBosteen Ok I could admit that but the essence of my question remains, were germans advancing mainly on foot and with bags on their shoulders? – sofky Nov 06 '17 at 09:33
  • 4
    In German countryside right up into the 60s it was not unusual to have a farm cart pulled by a cow. My grandma-in-law had one - she couldn't afford a horse or tractor, and she had the cow anyway. – RedSonja Nov 06 '17 at 09:58
  • @LarsBosteen i have seen a citation of million horses, ideally i should look it up. I seem to remeber they started out with something like 600-700 thousand horses but took quite many horses from Poland for use right after this point. Now a million is probably a peak value, very early in the war. In either case it can be said that WW2 was the biggest horse driven war since they had more horses on all sides than in any other war before it or since. – joojaa Nov 06 '17 at 14:41
  • @joojaa As they started out with around 650,000 horses, it wouldn't be surprising if the number eventually came close to a million. My point with the question (which I should have clearer earlier) is that 'millions' (implying at least 2 million) is an exaggeration, but then documentaries tend to do that unfortunately. – Lars Bosteen Nov 06 '17 at 14:55
  • @LarsBosteen yeah definitely not 2 million horses. – joojaa Nov 06 '17 at 15:27
  • 1
    @LarsBosteen wiki article "Horses in WW2" cites Walter Scott Dunn's "The Soviet economy and the Red Army, 1930–1945" in reference to Germany using 2.75 million horses in course of war, that's where the figure in millions comes from, probably. It doesn't mean that German army had a million horses in it at any given moment, though. – Danila Smirnov Nov 07 '17 at 03:14
  • Horses were losing out to tanks and armoured cars in battle, but still had some tactical use. The main use was as transport: they didn't need scarce petrol, they were more nimble on bad terrain, they didn't break down as much, and so on. – Ne Mo Nov 08 '17 at 11:16
  • As a rule of thumb, for the 1939 Wehrmacht : one mechanical vehicle per 300 soldiers (10.000 per 3 million troops). – user2707001 Nov 09 '17 at 10:58

5 Answers5

54

You are correct. Parts of the Wehrmacht were mechanized, but the vast majority was foot infantry with horse drawn logistics. Most soldiers walked towards Moscow, and back.

Jos
  • 21,973
  • 2
  • 63
  • 99
  • 68
    +1. It's interesting to reflect that WW2 is pretty much the first war which we know to a large part because of moving pictures, so these movies very much color our perceptions. And these movies were shot by dedicated cameramen - no ubiquitous mobile phones with cameras. And what would those cameramen film? Impressive technical stuff, like cars or tanks, not boring old horses. Result: the technology we may connect with WW2 because of movies we see is heavily over-sampled and not representative. – Stephan Kolassa Nov 06 '17 at 10:01
  • 21
    I had a very old neighbour (in Gemany) who informed me proudly he had walked to Russia and back twice. As balance, as the war was ending another very old female neighbour walked as a refugee to South Germany from Pomerania (the far side of Poland) aged 17, alone, carrying a suitcase. – RedSonja Nov 06 '17 at 10:02
  • 12
    Also (@StephanKolassa) many of the movie cameras of the time required a fair bit of transport in their own right (or stripping down to be carried on horses). So it would be easier to keep them with mechanised/motorised troops. This woudl be a further source of sampling bias. Trucks and tanks also show up rather better than horses to the untrained eye on aerial photography, which was taken for military reasons rather than public consumption so would display different biases – Chris H Nov 06 '17 at 10:21
  • 10
    No one has mentioned trains, which were certainly used for transportation. And that East Prussia and the Baltic states are much closer to Russia than current German territory. – bgwiehle Nov 06 '17 at 15:50
  • 4
    +1 Also, logistics was complicated by a fact that Russian Empire/Soviet Union used different (wider) railroad gauge so "standard" gauge German locomotives and railroad cars could not be used on it, and I would assume Red Army destroyed all which were not evacuated. to the East. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Nov 06 '17 at 17:30
  • Did most of them walk back? Or do you mean most of those that survived walked back. – corsiKa Nov 06 '17 at 20:31
  • @corsiKa If they hadn't been killed or already taken prisoner, they wouldn't have had far to go -- the last of the fighting on all the fronts was on German soil. Those released from POW status after the war (months to years later) often had to walk home, depending on individual circumstances. – bgwiehle Nov 06 '17 at 22:32
  • You should fix the misspellings, "infantery" and "soliders" – James Waldby - jwpat7 Nov 07 '17 at 02:46
  • The zdnet article you linked cites a lot from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html – Bergi Nov 07 '17 at 04:36
  • @bgwiehle: trains were an extra burden for logistics. Russian trains use a wider track. The Germans had to re-train their trains to use the Russian rail network. What was left of it, and that wasn't much. – Jos Nov 07 '17 at 08:26
  • @Jos The point was, that it wasn't necessary to march across half of Europe BEFORE getting to hostile territory.. – bgwiehle Nov 07 '17 at 13:53
  • 2
    @Jos - I thought that railroad gauge would be a problem, but after reading 2nd link (from Russian military history site), I changed my opinion. Germans logistics was well prepared for this, and converted 20 km of rails per day per line. By mid-August 41, they have German gauge railroad up to Smolensk. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Nov 07 '17 at 14:59
  • @Peter Masiar: Yes, up to point you are correct. If attended a lecture where the professor basically wipes that argument of the table. According to him, German logistics experts warned they could supply the army to about 700 km in Russia. After that point (about 2/3 of the way to Moscow), they knew they would run into massive trouble. The generals (most notably a certain corporal) simply ignored it. They tried to improvise things and that didn't work. So yes, up to 700 km inside Russia the logistics system worked. Beyond that point it didn't. – Jos Nov 08 '17 at 07:15
  • @Jos: "A certain corporal" -- Corporal is OR-4, the lowest of the NCO ranks in Anglo-American troops, and a non-existent rank in the Wehrmacht. Did you mean a Colonel? That wouldn't be a general either... or a Feldmarschall? – DevSolar Nov 08 '17 at 07:55
  • 1
    @DevSolar Hitler. He means Hitler. Although "corporal" is still wrong: Gefreiter is equal to OR-2 - Private First Class. – Danila Smirnov Nov 08 '17 at 09:10
  • Jos - I am certainly not expert, but also don't see why Russian military history experts would be pro-German. Certainly, sending tanks from Smolensk to Kiev (and back) was not "improvisation" but a blunder which decided the campaign. Tanks burn lots of fuel: on 300 l fuel tank (79 gal) range was 90-160 km (60-100 miles), depending on the terrain. And tracks had to be replaced after few hundred kms, sooner for heavier tanks. So after Kiev distraction, tanks had to be refurbished - in the field. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Nov 08 '17 at 14:01
22

When the Wehrmacht arrived in Prague in March 1939, it was a bicycle army. The same role as USA trucks played for the Russian army in 1941-45 was played by the Czech Skoda and Tatra cars and trucks for the German army.

After the Allied invasion in Normandy the Wehrmacht had moved all motorized groups to the West and only usual infantry remained in the East. That made the huge encirclements of 1944 on the Eastern Front possible. Whole regions and republics occupied by non-mobile German troops were cut off one after another. With these troops, they couldn't even escape in time.

(It was after the Soviets reached the German lands themselves when the point of German power was turned back to the East.)

So, we can't say if the German army was motorized or not without asking what time and place we mean exactly. One of the strengths of the German and Soviet generals in WWII was that they could change not only the size and concentration of troops dynamically, but also their level of modernity. There were places where the maximally modernized and mobilized troops fought, and tens of kilometers away there were troops that looked like their WWI counterparts. Continental countries did not get the fantastical amount of technological equipment that the US army had, and they concentrated that equipment in important locations only. And as the Ardennes showed, it was more than enough.

There is another problem - motorized HOW? For example, while Stalin was preparing to the WWII in Europe in 1940-41, USSR was building "highway tanks" - with great speed, but for good roads only. But in the USSR itself there were no good roads. Even in 1989 my German far relative, a roads specialist, when he visited us in Moscow and looked around the capital, said: I haven't seen roads here, but there are places where I can drive a car. One of my acquaintances - an old Soviet officer who went by foot from Russia to Germany during WWII, had said, that along their way in all the USSR they crossed only one paved road and one asphalted. I do not remember the latitude of his way, but the main thought remains - cars in the USSR had limited use.

And in some seasons they were of no use at all. The asphalted road to Astrakhan - a regional center on Southern Volga - was built in year 1981. And before that every autumn and spring the usual ground road became unpassable. The only transport that could be used was special trucks for strategic rockets, with an engine in every wheel. And they had to travel in pairs, to help each other in harder places. (The ground is so sticky there, when wet.) In 1945 the car that could pass any Russian road simply didn't exist anywhere in the world. Even in the 90ies they said in Russia: Jeep is a car that will stuck where no other car can reach it. Another Russian proverb: Russia has two problems: fools and roads.

So, on the Eastern front it was different - tanks could run, but not too far, and with cars and trucks sometimes you had lesser speed than without them. The railway theme, raised by Michael Kay, was of extreme importance then. But the railroad mobility was not defined by the modernity of the army, but by the number of roads on the land and their defense from the air and partisan attacks.

Very important and heavily underestimated by both sides was also the river transport. Dnepr, Bug, Dnestr, were much more powerful than any rockade way.

Gangnus
  • 7,237
  • 25
  • 40
  • 10
    Interesting, and correct. The Germans took away the much hated bicycle tax in The Netherlands (hooray!) followed very quickly by confiscating the bicycles (boo!). 'I've got my bicycle back' is still used today if a Dutchman outsmarts a German on something. – Jos Nov 07 '17 at 08:42
  • 4
    So, they were not only the army on bicycles, but the army on the stolen bicycles! :-) – Gangnus Nov 08 '17 at 14:21
12

No-one has mentioned trains. While there was a lot of walking, there was also a lot of bulk movement of troops (and supplies) by train.

Michael Kay
  • 396
  • 1
  • 7
  • Well, the question is mostly concerned with the attack against the Soviet Union, and that had very poor infrastructure. The lack of proper rail supply was a constant issue for the troops. Not that mechanization would have helped - the mechanized troops needed even more supplies, which simply weren't available. – Luaan Nov 07 '17 at 09:41
  • 2
    @Luaan On the contrary, "the rail war" was the extremely important part of the Eastern campaign. BUT. The quality of railways is the attribute of the land, not of the army. As for engines or cars, all sides had enough of them, the limits were set by the number of working railways. – Gangnus Nov 07 '17 at 10:06
  • 2
    @Luaan Sure it was a constant issue, but that itself demonstrates its importance. (Anecdote: when my German uncle was injured on the Eastern Front, it took him six weeks to get home to his family in Hannover; but when he did get home, it was by train.) – Michael Kay Nov 07 '17 at 10:15
8

Just barely. Only 20 (out of about 190) divisions were Panzers, with a slightly smaller number of motorized infantry divisions. So the Wehrmacht was only about 20% mechanized and motorized. That's less than either the American or British armies and even the Soviet armies (after Lend Lease kicked in during late 1942 and later).

"Most" German soldiers marched on foot, with their supplies being drawn by horses. That caused problems around Moscow during the first winter, and contributed to the shortage food (lack of accumulated surpluses before the encirclement) at Stalingrad.

It also contributed to problems on the Russian front. Around Smolensk, and in certain parts of the Ukraine, a portion of the Soviet armies escaped encirclements because the infantry could not move up quickly enough to fill gaps left behind by fast moving armored divisions. When they were on the retreat, the Germans were at a clear disadvantage. During Operation Bagration in 1944, for instance, the Germans inflicted physical casualties (killed and wounded) on the Russians at the rate of 2 to 1, but the Russians captured enough Germans to reduce to total casualty rate to 3 to 2, because the Russians had trucks (from Lend Lease),the Germans didn't, and stranded a large number of prisoners.

Tom Au
  • 104,554
  • 17
  • 253
  • 530
  • 6
    And even a Panzer division had only 2 tank regiments. And their supplies were mostly drawn by horses, too. – Gangnus Nov 07 '17 at 10:09
  • Motorized = wheeled transport (trucks usually); mechanized = tracked transport (APC's). Panzer Grenadier could be either wheeled (mostly) or tracked. – Pieter Geerkens Nov 10 '17 at 06:38
  • @PieterGeerkens: OK, changed it to "mechanized and motorized.." Thanks for your help. – Tom Au Nov 10 '17 at 15:37
-4

You're right. Wehrmacht was mechanized. Wehrmacht in 1941 was an ideal military machine. He had fast tanks and tractors. Tank and motorized divisions were all "with a motor". The motorized division could have only one company on Hanomag, but both regiments of infantry were necessarily transported by trucks. All transport provided a high speed of movement along the highway. Armored cars and radio communications allowed to react quickly to tank fists. This is also the speed of the division! A large number of sappers made it possible to quickly build bridges (see the encirclement of Kiev). This is the same speed division! Each German tank company had a repair truck, supply trucks and scout motorcyclists. This is the same speed division! The advanced German forces were supplied by air. This is the same speed and strength of the division!

Horses. This is the basis for the supply of infantry divisions. They were slow. And the infantry did move on foot. For example, in the German infantry company there was a horse for transportation of ammunition. Just like in the Soviet company. But even here there is a brilliant moment. German generals formed mobile groups in the infantry division. The mobile group is reconnaissance armored vehicles, self-propelled units, an infantry battalion on trucks and a battalion of howitzers. As a result, the advance of the infantry division moved like a tank division. Moreover, self-propelled units fought no worse than tanks and confused Soviet commanders. Soviet commanders did not understand, "if an infantry division is near, where did the tanks come from?"

At a strategic level, tank groups were stronger than Soviet mechanized corps. The Soviet mechanized corps had many tanks, but could not fill them. The German tank group (actually the tank army) had artillery and infantry. And this artillery easily destroyed mechanized corps.

The problem of the Wehrmacht in Russia was expensive: there were few roads, roads were bad. Plus the terrible weather.

The Western military machine is special forces + specialization + supply. Supply = big logistics. And this was the Achilles' heel of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht received supplies problems already near Moscow. If the Wehrmacht retreated, the roads turned into a crowd of stuck trucks. When the trucks were destroyed, the Wehrmacht became very weak.

A little joke. How did the Soviet fighters fight the German Tigers? Very simple! A column of trucks and gasoline tankers supplies one Tiger. One Soviet fighter turns this column into a big fire. As a result, the invincible Tiger stands with empty fuel tanks and without shells. Checkmate.

Where was the Wehrmacht stronger than the Red Army? In the Soviet divisions there were fewer trucks. Moreover, they were less than the regular number (10-50%). In the Soviet motorized division very often the infantry moved on foot ... Soviet artillery moved slowly (tractor speed - 10 km/h). Soviet trucks were not all-wheel drive. Soviet industry produced very few heavy trucks. Bad communication: many divisions had only telephone communication with the headquarters of the front. As a result, the Soviet command reacted "slowly." In the Soviet tank brigade, the radio was only for commanders of battalions. Even reconnaissance of tank brigades was often without radio. There was never a truck in the Soviet tank company. The tank was repaired by the crew of the tank. The tank was in repairs of the tank crew. It takes time. The repair truck was only at the level of the tank brigade. Soviet tank units in 1941 had 4-5 types of tanks (different spare parts) and required 3-4 types of fuel. This is the suicide of logistics and the death of a mechanized corps.

Where was the Wehrmacht weaker than the Red Army? German troops demanded a lot of good roads. During the retreat, trucks blocked roads-a supply collapse. The Wehrmacht could not act autonomously when the supply was destroyed. German quartermasters often made mistakes: winter clothes were sent to Africa, condoms to Stalingrad.

Jos
  • 21,973
  • 2
  • 63
  • 99
Konstantin
  • 197
  • 5
  • Downvoted for "ideal military machine" and rambling. – DevSolar Nov 09 '17 at 10:19
  • 1
    Russian infantry had tanks, too.... Really, too many errors to speak about. -1 – Gangnus Nov 10 '17 at 00:27
  • Compare the Soviet and German tank companies. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 06:54
  • You say that Soviet officers thought it is impossible for infantry to have tanks. It is incorrect. – Gangnus Nov 10 '17 at 12:16
  • "Horses. This is the basis for the supply of infantry divisions. They were slow" - Who were slow? Horses or infantry? If the former, the sentences should be edited. If the latter, it is trivial. But slow in comparison to what? And your text is full of such "thoughts". – Gangnus Nov 10 '17 at 12:18
  • "You say that Soviet officers thought it is impossible for infantry to have tanks. It is incorrect." Where did I write this? I wrote something completely different!

    My words: "Soviet commanders did not understand, "if an infantry division is near, where did the tanks come from?""

    – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:07
  • What is the speed of the infantry foot column? 4 km/h ! What is the speed of the main supply (horse)? The same! In June 1941, Soviet commanders did not understand how the German infantry division "jumped" 100 kilometers a day and seized the bridgehead... This is a shock! – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:08
  • Soviet officer may ask: "It was infantry?" What will he receive in return? "Tanks!" In fact, it was a self-propelled installation Stug. But the commander of the Soviet division does not have a radio. The telephone wire is broken. The message was brought by the communications delegate (ordinary soldier). Who sent this message? A young, frightened lieutenant. This lieutenant saw iron, trucks, cannon - a real tank! – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:08
  • How does the Soviet commander of the front see this situation? German tanks are coming everywhere?! Absurd! The fog of the war was very dense for Russian commanders. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:09
  • "Who were slow? Horses or infantry?" They were slow. They are both slow. An infantry or infantry division is very slow in comparison with a motorized or a tank division. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:09
  • "And your text is full of such "thoughts"." I thought it was not necessary to explain the obvious. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:10
  • Probably the next question will be about the cavalry division. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:10
  • German infantry divisions have tank units? No. And the Soviet commanders knew this. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:20
  • But you still do not understand why the Wehrmacht with PzI tanks in 1941 was strong, and with PzV tanks in 1945 was weak. – Konstantin Nov 10 '17 at 13:23
  • Please, instead of adding explanations in comments, improve your answer. And name, explain and prove you main thoughts - I simply can't find them. They are lost in anecdotes on other themes. – Gangnus Nov 11 '17 at 23:32