Bicycling

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:01 PM - Edit history (8)

The Ranger who set up the shoot out had previous used a Thompson and found it under-powered, thus when the final shoot out occurred he had upgraded to a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) for he wanted the power of a full power rifle cartridge not a pistol round. That MG-42 clone on the bike will do a similar job on any vehicle. The BAR was and is a MACHINE GUN, for it fires a full power rifle round, in the case of the BAR the 30'06 round. The Thompson is a SUB-machine Gun, for it fires a PISTOL round.

Bonnie and Clyde's car after the shootout:



The problem with the Thompson, is it fires the .45 caliber ACP round. The old joke about the .45 ACP is for the round to penetrate into an automobile, you better open the door first. The .45 has great knock down power, but poor penetration.

But I am getting away from Bicycles which is what this Group should be on.

Just look at this chart as to transportation efficiency, please note the "Weight" in the chart means the weight of equipment NOT including the weight of the soldier or weight of the device doing the hauling:




A Soldier can carry two days worth of rations and water (if water is NOT available on the March), three days on the bicycle. If you exclude water (and have the soldier use various devices to use local waters) 16 days of food on foot, 25 days on a bicycle, but on those 16 days the Soldier on foot can cover, 400 miles, on a bicycle, 1875 miles.

What a horse provides in extra range and hauling capacity, it loses in food for itself (and thus should be reserved for transport of heavy equipment, equipment to heavy to be hauled by a trailer to a bicycle).

Trucks are efficient, if you have access to fuel. Limited mobility given they have a tough time in areas with trees and other rough terrain. Best reserved for transport of supplies and light infantry to areas right BEHIND the point of combat.

Tracked vehicles have less range then Trucks and carry smaller loads, but can move those troops right into combat. On the down side, if tracked must have track replaced every 2000 miles or less. If wheeled, not much better cross country ability then a truck (i.e road based, but such armored wheeled vehicle can go into combat unlike trucks).

Bonnie and Clyde car actually demonstrated the main problems with wheeled motor vehicles, they are all road based and thus easy to ambush. Best used on secured highways. If the area is unsecured, then avoid the roads and trails to avoid ambushes. In such situations, the options tend to be foot, bicycle or horse.

ATVs are used in such situations, but mostly to haul supplies to combat troops, for they do not carry that much fuel and thus limited range (i.e can go only as far as a tank of fuel can take them to and from their fuel point). What ever fuel the ATV carries for itself, means less supplies it can carry. Like a horse, an ATV will get to a point where the fuel it needs to operate replaces any supplies it can carry (and the ATV falls into two categories, one that can go where a horse can go, but carries no where need the supplies a horse can carry, or one large enough to carry as much as a horse, but can NOT go where a horse can go for it is to large for the back wood trails). Remember in most combat areas, you want to avoid roads, highways and trails, for that is where ambushes occur. Once you secure such roads, highways and trails, then you can use motorized transport on them. Thus ATVs have had limited usage in combat, again mostly hauling supplies along secure routes as oppose to operating in areas with a high chance of actual contract with the enemy.

Thus you are back to foot, horses and bicycles as your choices in areas of actual combat, as oppose to getting troops and supplies to those areas of combat. Since WWII the US has tried to avoid combat in areas where its superiority in motorized transport could be neutralized. Italy during WWII was the first case, the US ended up hiring ex-Italian Army Muleskinners to get supplies to the troops fighting in the mountains of Italy. In Korea, the second case, the Chinese Red Army grabbed the mountains using mules as transport and chased the US Army out of North Korea in the winter of 1950-1951, but US forces did capture a lot of Red Army Mules (including at least on ex-US Mule that had been transported to Burma in 1945). In Korea units that captured such mules were under orders to turn them over to Headquarters so they could be given to high priority units. Most ground forces quickly learned NOT to do that, but kept the mules for their own use, to get supplies to troops fighting on the mountain ridges.

US Forces have used Horses, Mules, Dogs and Llamas, as pack animals, since WWII, but mostly by Special Forces since Korea. They have their place in modern combat. If used carefully, will enhance combat effectiveness, just like bicycle used correctly will enhance combat effectiveness.

Side note: While I used the term "horse" in the above, I also include Mules and in most cases Mules would be the first choice for they are better in heavy forest and mountains. Again given the differences between bicycles and Mules, Bicycles would be a better first choice except where you need to haul more then 100 pounds of equipment. Mules and horses are good for up to 400 pounds of equipment on their back (2000 in a wagon, but when it comes to wagon you are again talking about roads and when it comes to road transport, if the road is secure, trucks come out on top except if you have no access to fuel).

Second side note: the Chart uses 100 pounds for horse, that means 100 pounds of equipment in addition to the rider and saddle. A horse can carry up to 400 pounds of equipment including the saddle or pack used to attack the equipment to the horse. Thus my use of 400 pounds and the chart use of 100 pounds are NOT in conflict. In most modern combat the horse or mule would be used to haul supplies and equipment NOT for riding. Ideally, food and additional supplies would be air dropped and the horse or mules (and bicycles) would be only hauling what they need to fight that day NOT the entire length of the march. This was the historical rule of pack horses and mules in most armies, hauling supplies from the rail-head, boat dock or truck depot to the troops.

Third Side note: Prior to trucks and railroads the preferred way to haul supplies was by ox cart. Ox Carts could haul more then a team of horses and did not need as much time grazing to stay fit for hauling. Oxen were slower then horses and mules but had better endurance. For example when the Oregon trail was in operation, horses and mules would leave the ox drawn wagon way behind when both sets of wagons left in the spring, but within a month the oxen had caught up with the horse and mule drawn wagons and passed them by. The Ox could remain fat on the grasses of the Great Plains, but Horses and Mules would need to be replaced after about a month, just to rest up and graze to get back up to weight to do actually hauling. Thus if you would have to replace the horses and mules on such a trip (or feed them a lot of GRAIN in addition to hay and grass). Horses and mules were both much faster then Oxen, but if you could feed them grain on a daily basis or replace them after about a month, the better choice was the Ox. Another example is during WWII, the Germans used a lot of Horses (Do to the lack of Fuel, thus trucks transport was restricted). Most horses had to be replaced after about four weeks of heavy usage, mostly do to lost of weight and either dying or becoming so weak they were no longer fit for work (and that was with a high grain diet but that is how bad the situation on the Eastern Front during WWII). I bring this up for prior to the widespread use of rail roads usage in the US Civil War, the Ox was the preferred animal for hauling supplies not the horse or mule. Outside of the US and Europe (and their extensive rail system by the mid 1800s) the Ox was still the dominate means of transport till the truck came into widespread use during WWI. This is do to the fact Horses and Mules have to be feed grain if used extensively, Oxen can survive on just grass even if hauling heavy loads on a daily basis. If you are hauling supplies from a nearby rail-head to the front, the greater speed of horses made sense, thus the German made little use of Oxen during WWII. In modern Combat most supply points are within a day's trip of most horses, thus the advantages of the Ox has little use today. Horses and Mules are superior to Ox, if the supply point is within a months trip back and fro (as was the Case in Korea during the Korean War, the last time the US Army used Mules extensively, mostly captured one from the Red Chinese).

Fourth Side note: During WWI, Britain used bicycle troops to expand gaps in the German lines made by tanks. The Tanks of WWI were NOT that reliable and did not have much range, both bicycle and cavalry had greater range and both were used in the last yeas of WWII to exploit gaps in the German Lines. On the other hand the British use of Bicycles in WWII was terrible. Instead of making a bicycle battalion, the British gave a bicycle to each infantry section (group of 8 men, equivalent to the US Squad, but the US Squad was a 12 man group). This disperse the bicycles instead of concentrating them. Instead of using the Cyclist as a reserve to exploit a gap or fill in a gap, this dispersement of bicycles ended up making them useless and most troops threw them away. One man out of an eight man section on a bicycle was useless. Each Section needed all eight men, not seven men and eighth-man way to the front (or to the rear taking care of the bike). This was a waste of bicycle troops, but given the heavy fighting in Normandy after D-day, there was no time to set up a reserve of cyclist or keep such a reserve in readiness. By the time of the break out in July, most of the bikes were gone, but even if they had been kept, the lack of concentration made them useless. This was the lesson the Germans, Japanese and Swiss did NOT make when they used bicycle troops. All of the troops in a battalion or regiment had bicycles or did NOT have bicycles. Thus the bicycles could be used by squads or sections as a single combat team which is what any squad or section is. What the British did in Normandy is like giving one of the linesmen in a football team a bicycle, but not the other 10 men on the team. A useless addition. On the other hand a football team ALL with bikes would be a different games and a much faster game.