Army is horse drawn

>army is horse drawn
>still blitzkriegs poland
>defeats france in 29 days
>takes over most of europe
>gets to moscow within 4 months

other than the memes, what's wrong with horses ?

Waste of lots of good horses.

See, most threads here are about nazis, german empire, rome and "jews"

Is /pol/ users making threads like this?

>defeats france in 29 days

45

Mules are better

>what's wrong with horses ?

Nothing
Napoleon conquered Prussia in 19 days and took Moscow in two months with an army that moved on foot and by horse

Because the leading elements were still mechanized/motorized and thats the bit that does the most damage.

In addition some G*rmans horse carriages were basically horse-powered trucks, most notably the HF7 Stahlfeldwagen. Unlike old, wooden, spoked wheel faggotry, they had truck tier suspension systems, replaceable parts, and tires.

In addition you can trail it behind an actual Truck, forming a land-train of sorts.

>>still blitzkriegs poland
>defeats france in 29 days
>takes over most of europe
>gets to moscow within 4 months
Because they had smaller elements of the army that were completely motorized, like armored and motorized divisions.
>what's wrong with horses
Nothing really, when you're mostly facing other largely horse drawn armies early on and you don't have the resources to fully motorize. The horse drawn divisions can fall far behind the faster ones, leading to gaps in the line where elements of encircled enemies can escape and causing massive traffic jams when the motorized supply columns come in contact with the masses of infantry on their way back, but you have to deal with what you have. The real contrasts were shown when a fully motorized army landed in the Normandy, and the Soviet army in the east was supplied with hundreds of thousands of foreign trucks. German infantry was basically immobile compared to the enemy, leading to the large scale encirclements of 1944 in both theaters.
Germany made the best of what they had, but it's hard to argue that horses were even near the level of 2.5 ton 6x4 trucks made for military use.

Germans needed those horses for farming. Not even memeing, their agriculture went to shit when all the horses were requisitioned for military uses.

This too, but the drop in agricultural production was also attributed to the conscription of farmers and lower allocations of iron to agriculture.

Nothing wrong with horses.

damn, that looks fucking nice

And it tastes even better. Really worth the price.

It's not that horses were wrong so much as the vehicle powered by a combustion engine is a much better tech for moving people and things.

I'm not convinced, the marbling is damn near nonexistent. Were the animals even bred and raised with meat production in mind?

And the blockade that cut off fertilizers, just like in WW1.

>"1 MONTH! I'll have you know it was almost 2."
Francboos are the worst

>the marbling is damn near nonexistent
That's the point. It's a lean meat, with almost no fat.

Lots of it was allocated to the army. In 1943/44 the production of nitrogen fertilizer was 67% of its prewar volume, while the Wehrmacht's consumption of it rose fivefold and the amount given to agriculture was cut.

>Insisting on facts is wrong

You ever work with horses? They are fucking high strung and spook easily, need constant attention so they don't fucking die of colic, worms, and hoof rot, and it takes at least a year to get one in work ready condition. I'd rather drive a truck.

Being a historian means examining facts, placing them in the proper context and then making a contextual analysis. If your facts are wrong your analysis will be immediately discarded.

He was right to correct you and you were wrong to get defensive.

Now as to the issue of horse drawn logistics the problem was speed. In Poland and France the German tanks regularly advanced far beyond their supply lines. This ended up being ok because the campaign ended before it could be exploited, not in Russia though.