Modern War and Centaurs: An Obsolete Race?

[Broken Crown]

I wasn't saying that it would affect the efficiency of the ship, rather that it would affect the survivability of the ship. One of the reasons the British lost so many battlecruisers at Jutland was because their ships were built more for comfort that the German ships. This means larger doors and fewer watertight compartments, leading to worse flooding.

Actually, no.

The British battlecruisers sunk at Jutland were all sunk as a result of unsafe ammunition handling practices designed to maximize their guns' rate of fire: Shells that penetrated the British ships' turrets started fires that spread very quickly to the magazines. Flooding was not an issue; the ships were blown in half.

(While the German capital ships did have very extensive internal subdivision that made them very difficult to sink, they also had adopted safer ammunition handling procedures after nearly losing SMS Seydlitz to a magazine explosion at Dogger Bank in 1915. A number of German ships at Jutland had turrets burned out, but none exploded as a result.)

Furthermore, any increase in the size of a ship means that speed, armor, or armament will suffer, or you have to increase the size of the engines.

Also no. Unlike a tank, where making it bigger means spreading the armour over a larger area and thus making it thinner for the same weight, making a battleship bigger actually allows it to carry more armour. The difference is that a ship has to be able to float, so to make it buoyant enough to carry heavy armour means it necessarily has to contain a lot of empty space (which also improves survivability, because you can then use it for defence in depth against torpedoes and the like). It's the square-cube law: Surface area, and thus armour area, increases as the square of the linear dimension, but volume, and thus buoyancy, and thus armour weight, increases as the cube of the dimension. Make the ship twice as big, and it can carry armour twice as thick.

Likewise, a bigger ship can also reach higher speeds more efficiently than a small one, partly due again to the immersed surface area and partly due a longer hull being less affected by the waves it creates. Compare the power:displacement ratio of a 100,000-tonne Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (about 2.6 hp/tonne) to that of a ~9000-tonne Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (about 11 hp/tonne). Yet the carrier can easily outrun its escorts if it needs to.

When it comes to warships, bigger = better. Of course, bigger is also more expensive, so it becomes a question of how many ships you can afford to build at that size.

How effective a centaur navy would be really depends a lot on what technology label we're considering. Wooden sailing warships had severe limits on how big you could make them, and needed large crews, so centaurs would be at a severe disadvantage. While their greater strength would mean you'd need fewer of them to run out a cannon, you'd still need just as many to load it at the same speed as a human crew, and it would be impossible to get that many centaurs working in such a confined space; the guns would have to be much further apart to allow them to be worked efficiently, which means that a ship would be able to carry far fewer of them. How useful centaurs would be climbing in the rigging to replace damaged sails or spars, I leave to the imagination.

As stronger iron and steel hulls were introduced, it was possible for ships to be made bigger and armed with a smaller number of much heavier and more powerful guns, so the inherent disadvantages of centaurs would become less of an issue. Still, even post WWII, warships were very manpower-intensive, and over time, an increasing amount of that was for tasks that need many hands (or brains), not just more strength. I expect that, given the higher logistical and volume costs of every individual sailor, a centaur navy would have a very strong and early drive towards automation.

[NRSASD]

I think a crucial aspect of the tanks vs centaurs in rough terrain debate depends absolutely critically on what level of technological advancement the tank has and what terrain we're discussing in particular.

For example, during the Winter War of 1939, the Finns were able to absolutely rout the Soviet forces (which had superior numbers, tanks, and aircraft) with submachine guns, molotov cocktails, and skis. In the dense and snowy forests of Finland, tanks got bogged down like nobody's business, and the Finns were able to capture them handily. Near the end of the war though, once the Soviets re-examined their tactics and vehicle designs, they were able to defeat the Finns fairly successfully.

WW1 era tanks were designed as trench breakers, and did that job admirably well, though they still got stuck quite frequently. They were far more successful than infantry had been though.

Modern day tanks are able to negotiate both of these terrains very easily, but steep rocky slopes, jungles, and dense old-growth forests are still insurmountable without specialized land clearing vehicles or engineering teams leading the way.

Centaurs would be more restricted by the terrain than human infantry would, nor would they be able to make use of their superior speed while in such areas, but they would still negotiate just about all of these terrains without the need for specialists clearing the path and benefit from the centaurs' superior endurance.

Using cavalry as an approximation of centaur capabilities is somewhat inaccurate as the centaur has more motor control than even the finest horseman, as he literally is his mount. Likewise, they're trying to use entirely different tactics when in combat. A better analogy would be that of dragoons or hobilars.

[Wardog]

Interesting discussion.

A few random thoughts:

Regarding centaur ecology and society:
It's my understanding that the centaur myths were inspired by the Scythians and other steppe nomads. It seem reasonable to assume that if centaurs were real, they would (originally at least) have occupied a similar environment and had a similar lifestyle (possibly replacing humans in that niche). That means: an economy based primarily on herding and trade (according to one book I've read it was the steppe peoples who basically ran the Silk Road trade). Crop-growing might be useful for them (as someone else suggested earier), but much of the steppe environment is less suitible for that. Also, how easy would it be for a centaur to actual plant and tend crops? Maybe they would get humans to do that sort of work for them (either by trading for produce, or having human slaves to farm for them).

Steppe nomad empires were very powerful (in their own element at least) for a long time, but tended to dwindle as firearms became more prevelent. However, as has been discussed, centaurs could carry more ammunition than humans, and probably bigger guns as well. So the centaur steppe empires may well hold out longer than their human equivilents did. Although they would probably become more settled, in order to develop the industry needed to produce more modern weapons.

Centaurs and Modern(ish) warfare
The centaur nations would probably be able to hold their own in any major war, up to the end of the 19th Century. while centaur emigrants and mercenaries would probably have their place in other nations armies.

WWI would change things. Some people have suggested that centaurs with armoured skirts would make barbed wire and trenches ineffective, but I'm sceptical of that. If that was true, then people would probably have done the same with horses. Apart from the early and final stages of WWI where cavalry actually had a place, centaurs in WWI would probably be best of working logistics.

Of course, that's assuming they even gove involved in WWI in the first place. Which leads me to:

Centaurs and geopolitics
If the central Eurasian steppes were ruled by centaur empires up to the Early Modern era (or beyond), that could have some quite major effects on how the rest of the world developed. If Russia never managed to take over that part of the world, they would presumably be a lot weaker going into WWI, which could change the whole course of 20th century history. On the other had, if they did manage to colonize there, Russia now has a major centaur population. Which could also have some quite profound effects on 20th Century events.

Centaurs and more modern(ish) warfare
According to an article I once read in National Geographic, the Hazara people of northern Afghanistan had quite a lot success fighting against the Taliban tanks by using RPG-equipped cavalry. The cavalry had better mobility over rough ground, and could use terrain for cover, hiding behind hills, poping over the ridge to launch missiles at the enemy, then retreating out of the lien of fire before they could respond. Centaurs would presumably do the same, which means (as others have already suggested) centaurs could still have a useful role in post-WWI warfare, as "fast heavy-weapons" squads, and in any sort of terrain or theatre where horses are superior to vehicles.

Proper modern warfare
On the other hand, once you get to modern, high-tech / industrialized warfare, I'm note sure centaurs will be of much use. Centaur tank, ships, and aircraft will all either be less effective or more expensive than human ones (or both). So outside of some very limited roles (e.g. special forces, heavy-weapons squads, and "modern tech doesn't help us here" scenarios) they won't be doing much in war. Which brings me back to:

Politics and society
I think a lot depends on how centaurs fit into the wider world. If centaurs are a non-dominant minority in whatever society they live in, then they will probably be recruited to serve in the roles they are good at, as long as those roles exist. And then when technology or society changes so that they are mostly obsolete, people will just stop recruiting them.

On the other hand, if centaurs are the majority, or a dominant minority, that might affect how technology develops. If most people (i.e. centaurs) don't benefit from or can't use vehicles, then vehicles might never get invented, or might just be curiosities. If centaurs are a ruling minority in a human-majority society, they might deliberately suppress the development of technology that could threaten their power.

Or at least, it could alter how the technologies developed and were used. Someone earlier said they thought centaurs wouldn't let humns drive them around in horse-transport like vehicles. If centaurs are a powerless minority in a human-run society, they will ride in whatever their masters tell them. Conversely, if centaurs run everything, humans will chauffeur centaurs around because they're paid (or ordered) to - at least in the case of centaurs rich enough or important to afford a comfortable centaur truck. Even if its completely unnecessary or impractical. Especially if its completely unnecessary or impractical.

And that scenario potentially sets up a future humn rebellion, if the centaur elite don't realise that their obsession with designing pointless vehicles to ride around in is giving their serfs the tools to surplant them...

[Strigon]

Modern day tanks are able to negotiate both of these terrains very easily, but steep rocky slopes, jungles, and dense old-growth forests are still insurmountable without specialized land clearing vehicles or engineering teams leading the way.

Centaurs would be more restricted by the terrain than human infantry would, nor would they be able to make use of their superior speed while in such areas, but they would still negotiate just about all of these terrains without the need for specialists clearing the path and benefit from the centaurs' superior endurance.

Using cavalry as an approximation of centaur capabilities is somewhat inaccurate as the centaur has more motor control than even the finest horseman, as he literally is his mount. Likewise, they're trying to use entirely different tactics when in combat. A better analogy would be that of dragoons or hobilars.

This is exactly what I was trying to say; my apologies if anyone thought I was merely referring to uneven terrain, or deep mud.

[Segev]

I see it as one of two ways: Centaurs replace specific ethnicities of human in this hypothetical society (probably the horse-nomads of the central asian steppes and maybe north american (midwestern and western) indians (who took to horses like ducks to water as soon as they were introduced; it changes little to have them already have them when Europeans encounter them). OR they are mixed in pretty much every human society, with numbers probably in the "dominant minority" to "majority" range, depending on their physiological success in the region. Places where horse-riders are kings would probably see a majority (or ruling minority) of centaurs, while those where horses find it more awkward would be more in the minority (but still a large plurality) and would be less dominant culturally.

In either event, I see them being prevalent and common enough that they would be a market for goods and services which meet their physiological constraints. If cars develop, some sort of "centaur seat" will be introduced, up to and including means for centaurs to drive them. I could almost see, say, over-the-road semi cabs having a design that does not require pedal-operation, and has a seat which is raised such that a centaur can just rest his chest on it to ease long-term standing at the wheel. Maybe the rest doubles as an elevated seat for a human driver, making for a "universal" driver's compartment that can be sold to any kind of driver.

The tricky thing would be that there are still going to be centaur-only designs, and human-only designs, because humans just pack that much more efficiently so somebody will make the cost-savings vehicles et al that pack in human riders.

This would become awkward for, say, kids' polo games, where moms want to carpool their kids and half the rest of the team. When some of the kids are human children and others are centaur foals, you'll need a minivan-equivalent that can accommodate both, at least as passengers.

[Brother Oni]

The tricky thing would be that there are still going to be centaur-only designs, and human-only designs, because humans just pack that much more efficiently so somebody will make the cost-savings vehicles et al that pack in human riders.

This would become awkward for, say, kids' polo games, where moms want to carpool their kids and half the rest of the team. When some of the kids are human children and others are centaur foals, you'll need a minivan-equivalent that can accommodate both, at least as passengers.

Perhaps something similar to wheelchair adapted cars, with seats up front and a wide flat space at the back with a foldable ramp, where the centaurs can kneel down and get in/out (I wonder how seatbelt requirements would be enforced?).

[Hawkstar]

I think you're ignoring all the actual obstacles likely faced in a scenario like that; remember, where there are roots, there are trees. Trees that your tank can't simply roll over.
And keep in mind that a tank can get stuck - not easily, but it can happen - whereas a centaur would probably be slowed down at worst under the same circumstances.

No, there aren't always trees where there are roots - there are often bushes, or long-gone stumps, or other things I stumble across. Besides - a stuck tank is a defensive fortification. Slowed centaurs are a turkey shoot.

Keep in mind, horses were doing just fine in the wild before we domesticated them; you seem to be under the impression that the moment a horse is in a muddy field, or on uneven terrain it suddenly becomes helpless, which just isn't true. The only reason they get injured by that is their riders push them too hard. Leave a horse alone in an area with all those obstacles you mentioned and it'll still do just fine.

Horses in the wild aren't horses on a battlefield.

[Strigon]

No, there aren't always trees where there are roots - there are often bushes, or long-gone stumps, or other things I stumble across. Besides - a stuck tank is a defensive fortification. Slowed centaurs are a turkey shoot.


Horses in the wild aren't horses on a battlefield.

When was the last time you saw bushes with roots big enough to be a hazard to horses?

And, no, slowed centaurs are not a turkey shoot, nor a stuck tank an effective defensive fortification for long. Slowed centaurs still have heavy armour, and dangerous weapons. They'd still win in a fight against infantry.
Sitting still in a tank? Before long, someone's going to come at you with anti-tank weapons, and then your defensive fortification becomes a deathtrap.

And, yes they are. They might not be engaging tanks or drones, but every day in the wild is a battle against everything else out there. Horses survive by being mobile enough to avoid wolves, not by tiptoeing around every shrub and gopher hole in sight.

[MrZJunior]

Actually, no.

The British battlecruisers sunk at Jutland were all sunk as a result of unsafe ammunition handling practices designed to maximize their guns' rate of fire: Shells that penetrated the British ships' turrets started fires that spread very quickly to the magazines. Flooding was not an issue; the ships were blown in half.

(While the German capital ships did have very extensive internal subdivision that made them very difficult to sink, they also had adopted safer ammunition handling procedures after nearly losing SMS Seydlitz to a magazine explosion at Dogger Bank in 1915. A number of German ships at Jutland had turrets burned out, but none exploded as a result.)

I defer to your superior knowledge of the Battle of Jutland. Do you think that it would be fair to say that a ship designed with centaurs in mind would not be able to implement the same sort of internal sub divisions that the German Navy had?

Also no. Unlike a tank, where making it bigger means spreading the armour over a larger area and thus making it thinner for the same weight, making a battleship bigger actually allows it to carry more armour. The difference is that a ship has to be able to float, so to make it buoyant enough to carry heavy armour means it necessarily has to contain a lot of empty space (which also improves survivability, because you can then use it for defence in depth against torpedoes and the like). It's the square-cube law: Surface area, and thus armour area, increases as the square of the linear dimension, but volume, and thus buoyancy, and thus armour weight, increases as the cube of the dimension. Make the ship twice as big, and it can carry armour twice as thick.

Likewise, a bigger ship can also reach higher speeds more efficiently than a small one, partly due again to the immersed surface area and partly due a longer hull being less affected by the waves it creates. Compare the power:displacement ratio of a 100,000-tonne Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (about 2.6 hp/tonne) to that of a ~9000-tonne Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (about 11 hp/tonne). Yet the carrier can easily outrun its escorts if it needs to.

When it comes to warships, bigger = better. Of course, bigger is also more expensive, so it becomes a question of how many ships you can afford to build at that size.

How effective a centaur navy would be really depends a lot on what technology label we're considering. Wooden sailing warships had severe limits on how big you could make them, and needed large crews, so centaurs would be at a severe disadvantage. While their greater strength would mean you'd need fewer of them to run out a cannon, you'd still need just as many to load it at the same speed as a human crew, and it would be impossible to get that many centaurs working in such a confined space; the guns would have to be much further apart to allow them to be worked efficiently, which means that a ship would be able to carry far fewer of them. How useful centaurs would be climbing in the rigging to replace damaged sails or spars, I leave to the imagination.

As stronger iron and steel hulls were introduced, it was possible for ships to be made bigger and armed with a smaller number of much heavier and more powerful guns, so the inherent disadvantages of centaurs would become less of an issue. Still, even post WWII, warships were very manpower-intensive, and over time, an increasing amount of that was for tasks that need many hands (or brains), not just more strength. I expect that, given the higher logistical and volume costs of every individual sailor, a centaur navy would have a very strong and early drive towards automation.

If this is all true why was there a distinction between battleships and battlecruisers? I thought that the whole point was that battleships traded speed for improved armament and armor while battlecruisers traded armor and armament for speed. If bigger is always better why would you need two distinct styles of ship like that? I believe that the distinction disappeared latter so perhaps it's a technology thing.

[Broken Crown]

I defer to your superior knowledge of the Battle of Jutland. Do you think that it would be fair to say that a ship designed with centaurs in mind would not be able to implement the same sort of internal sub divisions that the German Navy had?

I can't say; I've read multiple sources which mention how the German dreadnoughts had a much greater degree of internal subdivision than their British equivalents, but the plans I've been able to find only show the main transverse bulkheads, which were no more numerous in German ships than in those of other navies, and which would leave plenty of space even for centaurs, so that's no help.

Warships of any era or nationality are generally not known for spaciousness or comfort: Consider sailing warships, or WWII submarines, which really packed the sailors in like sardines, but were somehow able to maintain fighting efficiency. Then again, many sailors who wrote about their time aboard such ships mentioned the long-term effects of the living conditions on the crew's health. It would be far worse for centaurs, especially as you'd have to devote a lot more space to corridors and gangways just to allow the crew to move around the ship. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a question of the extent to which you're willing to sacrifice the crew for the sake of the ship.

Sorry if this is an unsatisfactory answer, but I can't find better information at the moment.

If this is all true why was there a distinction between battleships and battlecruisers? I thought that the whole point was that battleships traded speed for improved armament and armor while battlecruisers traded armor and armament for speed. If bigger is always better why would you need two distinct styles of ship like that? I believe that the distinction disappeared latter so perhaps it's a technology thing.

Without going into a century's worth of naval history, the distinction was that battleships were battleships, while battlecruisers evolved from big cruisers. The designs of the two distinct ship types basically converged until, by the end of WWI, there was no difference between them.

Battlecruisers were very much a transitional design. Only three navies (Britain, Germany, and Japan) built them (the US Navy started a few, but turned them into aircraft carriers before they were done), and the concept was starting to be considered obsolete even before Jutland, because it was possible to simply build a bigger ship which could carry heavier armour and achieve higher speeds. "Slow" battleships hung around for a while because, if your battle fleet was going to be operating as a single unit, there was no point in any of your battleships being faster than your slowest class, so you might as well save weight and cost by installing smaller engines.

[lightningcat]

I personally don'the see centaurs being big into any type of maritime pursuits. Both their size and build discourage it, hooves are much less solid on wet surfaces than human feet. This is even more true in older times, where wet wood was dangerous even to those wearing boots. Exceptions would exist for individuals, but I think a centaur navy would be a relatively new thing for a pure centaur country, assuming it is not a landlocked country. Likewise in mixed navies I don't think that there would be a lot of centaur sailors, the same reason they don't have many sailors over 6' tall.

[Wardog]

If this is all true why was there a distinction between battleships and battlecruisers? I thought that the whole point was that battleships traded speed for improved armament and armor while battlecruisers traded armor and armament for speed. If bigger is always better why would you need two distinct styles of ship like that? I believe that the distinction disappeared latter so perhaps it's a technology thing.

Bigger is better (until planes and torpedoes mess things up). Battle cruisers were similar in size and armament to battleships, but had less armour, and therefore less weight/mass, making them faster.

They went out of fashion because the advantages of increased speed were outweighed by the disadvantages of not being properly armoured. (Especially I think given that going faster than a battleship meant you outran your own fleet and met the enemy without the support of your battleships, while sticking with the rest of the fleet meant you had sacrificed your armour for no reason).

[Silus]

See, I think "Centaur in modern war" and this is what comes to mind:

Spoiler: Spoilered for size

Show

Centaur running about with anti-material rifles and similarly large caliber weapons generally suited for stationary fire?

Sounds like a plan to me.

Edit: Found a better picture.

[Brother Oni]

Spoiler: Spoilered for size

Show

Centaur running about with anti-material rifles and similarly large caliber weapons generally suited for stationary fire?

While it's a good picture, why is the human portion armoured and not the larger horse part? Surely a direct hit to the main horse body will incapacitate the centaur just as easily?

I'm also not so sure that the centaur's anatomy is any better than a human's for taking recoil - it's still going through the shoulder and arms, plus you now have a increased curvature of the spine (or whatever mechanism is used to let the spine go through 90 degrees) which would increase stress to the skeleton, rather than reduce it.

[Segev]

I'm also not so sure that the centaur's anatomy is any better than a human's for taking recoil - it's still going through the shoulder and arms, plus you now have a increased curvature of the spine (or whatever mechanism is used to let the spine go through 90 degrees) which would increase stress to the skeleton, rather than reduce it.

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm picturing a bracing structure which rests along the back and against the rump, supporting the shoulders to help with recoil when I think of centaur advantages, there.

[NRSASD]

Love the picture! I figured they lean forward when firing, like riflemen behind an embankment

[Stellar_Magic]

Battlecruisers were very much a transitional design. Only three navies (Britain, Germany, and Japan) built them (the US Navy started a few, but turned them into aircraft carriers before they were done), and the concept was starting to be considered obsolete even before Jutland, because it was possible to simply build a bigger ship which could carry heavier armour and achieve higher speeds. "Slow" battleships hung around for a while because, if your battle fleet was going to be operating as a single unit, there was no point in any of your battleships being faster than your slowest class, so you might as well save weight and cost by installing smaller engines.

Hence why the Japanese converted Kongo-class battlecruisers into 'fast battleships' by up-armoring and rebuilding them. While you could get a bit more speed by using less armor and more engine power, it proved to be an inefficient trade... Also battlecruisers were originally conceived of as cruiser hunters, they were never meant to be put into the main line of battle like they were at Jutland.

[Icewraith]

The "fire while running" bit reminded me of one more reason why centaurs don't work.

Horses have an extremely wide field of view due to the placement of their eyes. They're sort of built to look at the ground and the surrounding terrain and nearly behind themselves for predators all at once. To keep horses docile we put blinders on them, significantly restricting their vision.

If centaurs do have the human head thing going on, they have huge blind spots due to their binocular vision. Or they have both sets of eyes on the head like an insect, which would make them truly terrifying snipers. Or there's a second set of eyes in the back or side of their head, Centaurs are usually portrayed as being oracles. Or they just have psychic powers or blindsense within 5" so they can run full speed, look at something in a different direction with their binocular vision, and still avoid tripping on any gopher holes or fallen logs in their path.

I suppose an alternative, mostly human-like skull structure with the eyes more widely spaced might also be possible. However, Centaurs stop being "part human, part horse" and instead become "part horse, part hammerhead shark".

There's a related sensory problem with ears where horses I believe can rotate their ears semi-independently, so the human ears are again probably a drawback. You could again solve this problem by giving them both sets of ears, or maybe giant elf ears.

The tail is another issue. I can see it developing more of a trunk-like structure or even forking into a pair of semi-opposable digits while retaining the whip action used to deter pests. It would also make grooming significantly easier.

...Y'know, I might be siphoning information based of half-remembered traits from the Animorphs book series, I had a friend who was really into them growing up and I will read almost any book if it's left lying around. Andalites are actually a good example of a sci-fi centaur.

Edit: I'm thinking of some sort of sling bracing a high recoil weapon on the sturdier horse body that is aimed and fired via the arms.

[Segev]

A friend IRL pointed out that horses' tails are how they handle issues near their rumps. Centaurs, as tool-using creatures, might develop elaborate tail-braids with tools that weave into them and can be used for various purposes. With intelligence and need, they might even be able to do some tricks of tail-based dexterity that horses cannot. Even something akin to the litter-spears that people cleaning up the sides of roads use could be a useful tool in the tails of intelligent creatures that practice spearing things and flicking them into the reach of their arms. A small array of specialized tools that can be fastened to a grip at the end of the tail, flicked into place with practiced care, might even be feasible.

Or perhaps the tools are each tied to a different set of tail-hairs, separated, and the one's not in use are lashed to their flanks so that only the portions meant to be in use are flicked. The trick is how they tie them in place to begin with; that may require help in the morning, whether from parents or siblings or spouses.

[Flickerdart]

Given how flexible modern prosthetics are when attached to damaged limbs, I can't imagine centaurs having great difficulty in coming up with some sort of advanced mechanical attachment for their entirely functional tails. Hell, we can just go full Doc Ock and give them some kind of arm assembly that they wear on their backs.

[Segev]

Perhaps, but I'm thinking in terms of historical development as well as modern-day. The idea being that this hypothetical alt-earth has always had centaurs around.