Composition of military raid, horse-type, number of mules etc

[HareBrain]

I'm not a military expert, and I'd rather not have those with some knowledge of that area laugh when they read my book, so I'm hoping for some expert or just common-sense advice.

I have a 1900-era-style army wanting to make a small-scale punitive/rescue mission into a technologically backwards/backwoods country, which is fairly sparsely populated and where the population is based on a feudal or clan structure. The clan warriors would possess axes, spears, hunting bows and no more than a few antiquated firearms. Some would be mounted on hardy ponies.

The raiders' basic mission is to punish a clan that took some surveyors prisoner and rescue the surveyors if still alive. My theory is that the raiders would want to strike hard and be able to retreat quickly if things went against them. So I thought about a few scouts and 30 cavalry troopers armed with carbines, with 10 of them trained in heavy weapons, and with the mule-train carrying two dismantled machine-guns and a dismantled mountain field-gun. If necessary the raiders would leave these and the mules behind if they had to get out.

So one question is, what kind of horse/pony could the raiders reasonably have for rough country yet still with the expectation of getting away quickly? And if they took normal cavalry horses (possibly in error: I haven't yet decided how competently they've planned this) what difficulties would they encounter?

And, how much gear could each trooper carry and still be manoevrable, in terms of food, pup-tent etc? How much would they be likely to rely in getting food locally, such as by hunting deer? And how many mules would be needed to support the raiders for an expedition of no more then a week (probably nearer four days), if eight mules are taken up with the heavy weapons? And how many extra men to handle the baggage train? (I assume these would be auxiliaries?)

And is there anything I've not thought of?

Sorry for the complex question! Many thanks in advance for any thoughts. I don't have to go into precise detail in the story; I just want to give the impression I know what I'm writing about.

 

[Venusian Broon]

HB, unfortunately I can't really answer your questions. However have you come across 'A History of the British Cavalry 1816-1919 v1-8' by the Marquess of Anglesey? I only scanned through a few pages, but it looks like a wealth of information - both in terms of organisation and actual real events. Volume 3 looks at the Zulu War, the second Afghan war, the Egypt and East Sudan - possibly matching quite well the situation that you describe.

Thankfully, if you are struggling to pay for research material, it is not copyrighted and is on Google books (hence free!). To get you started:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=a history of the british cavalry volumes vi&gws_rd=ssl

EDIT: aah, I see that they have stripped out some of the pages - perhaps you do have to buy it. I see the offending button. B******s caught me out. Sorry! Well at least you can see quite a lot on Google - might be enough for your research, or enough for you to decide to part with a few quid.

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks, VB -- I've reserved vol 3 from the library. Yes, those situations do sound pretty similar, though I imagine larger units would have been involved. I was thinking of this as more a "special forces" type operation.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I had downloaded a full pdf book on British cavalry - that included a description from Churchill (I think - or at least I think he wrote it) of the non-effectiveness of a cavalry charge against a group of Sudanese tribesmen. Would have been happy to share (it definitely was free!) Unfortunately I downloaded it onto my old computer. And the hard-drive on that has gone to digital heaven with the other dead toasters. And now I can't find it on the in the interweb.

If I remember it I'll come back with link.

 

[Brian G Turner]

In the mediaeval period, if mounted soldiers wanted to move fast, they did it only with their horses, with only what provisions they could carry. The horses would move at a walk-trot, to cover distance without becoming easily tired. They would not be accompanied by mules or wagons, but instead seek to rendez-vous with them at a later date - if required. A trooper can carry what they need for at least 3 days.

If you're talking about rough country then I certainly wouldn't expect any useful roads for wagons. Heavy weapons and field artillery would sound like a serious tactical error to me. Not only are you not relying on your strengths of speed and manoeuvrability, you risk your equipment getting bogged down - and the potential dangers of losing expensive and deadly artillery to the enemy on such a small mission.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Quote from Major-General William Philips after the recapture of Fort Ticonderoga 1776

"Where a goat can go, a man can go. And where a man could go, he can drag a gun"

Horse artillery was designed to be light enough to be moved around a lot, and certainly I'm sure 'reasonably easy' to drag through and handle rough ground. And it could be a tactical advantage, after all if your enemy is not expecting any artillery because 'there's no way they could get a cannon there' then you suddenly appear...

It's great what history you can learn from Empire: Total War


EDIT: They would also have specially produced mountain artillery for campaigns in these areas - slightly smaller guns that could be dissembled and specifically designed to be carried or towed by mule teams rather than horses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_2.75-inch_Mountain_Gun

 

[HareBrain]

Thanks for the replies so far -- they're throwing up some interesting thoughts,

Yes, the field-gun is disassembled and carried by mule. Same with the machine-guns.

EDIT: They would also have specially produced mountain artillery for campaigns in these areas - slightly smaller guns that could be dissembled and specifically designed to be carried or towed by mule teams rather than horses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_2.75-inch_Mountain_Gun

Oooh, that link looks familiar ...

and with the mule-train carrying two dismantled machine-guns and a dismantled mountain field-gun

I take the point about not losing the guns, but I think they would risk this for the "shock and awe" value, as VB implies. And perhaps have some mechanism whereby they can quickly be rendered inoperable so their capture would be of no real consequence.

I'm not considering wagons BTW, only mules.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The Blackwood "Tales of the Outposts" published in 1920s with pre-1914 descriptions of guns carried on mules in Afghanistan are enlightening. In many ways!
I have almost all of these. The Jem H'dar soldiers and Ferengni traders (of Star Trek) are in those in pre 1914 Raj India! The DS9 Wormhole is pass from India to Afghanistan. Federation is British Empire!

I also have a PDF some place of 1930s carrying of Cinema, Radio transmitters, etc on Mules from India to Tibet! I'll upload it. It's real, with photos too.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I'm not considering wagons BTW, only mules.

Yes, 1890s to 1940s they carried quite large disassembled artillery on mules. not Wagons. Possibly this is STILL an option if unsuitable place to get helicopters to! Also in 1950s very large military radio systems still offered Mule back - pack options. Each part needs two soldiers to move it easily (I have lifted such a radio off a table to floor in mid 1960s, it nearly did me in, I think a UK model "C12".
http://www.wftw.nl/

 

[Brian G Turner]

Horse artillery was designed to be light enough to be moved around a lot

This is why I should stick to the pre-gunpowder era.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I would be cautious about have a force that is for punitive and rescue. If it's rescue, then they don't want to be spotted until they've freed the captives - and if they want the captives to still be alive, they'll want to get out of there as soon as possible.

If it's punitive, then you wouldn't send a handful of troops, you send an army. With cavalry, infantry and artillery. There are very few places that artillery can't go, and if you're up against a force that DOESN'T have artillery, then you can destroy your enemy without getting any casualties - it's pretty much essential for any large army.

What you also have to ask yourself is, why are the surveyors still alive? Is it because they're being used as hostages or as slaves? If you want to have any chance of getting them out alive, you either send negotiators or you try and rescue them with a small number of troops in a surprise attack. If you're going to send in a large force to punish them for what they've done then you're pretty much guaranteeing that any surviving hostages are going to be dead before you get to them.