5 ms·

From what I've read America went through a compressed repeat of all the mistakes and what the other allies had learnt 1914-1916. Were it not for the brief excur

From what I've read America went through a compressed repeat of all the mistakes and what the other allies had learnt 1914-1916. Were it not for the brief excursion into Mexico in the years preceding, they'd have opened with cavalry. Even so they still formed a cavalry division in 1917. Learning to deal with the arrival of machine guns, gas and the stagnancy of trench warfare before proper mechanisation was challenging to the generals and tactics of the day. I imagine their soldiers had just as tough a time of it as others. Life was cheap, WW1 was brutal in the extreme.

Retric 7y ago
Cavalry actually was used very effectively in WWI, for example the Battle of Mons. It was still quite devastating outside of trench warfare, which was why there where still some cavalry units at the start of WWII. Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. That can apply to just about any heavy but still man portable weapon. PS: Horses where still useful outside of battle in WWII. Hell, America was occasionally using donkey’s in Afghanistan.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Yeah but Mons was the opening weeks of the war before the entrenchment and stagnancy on both sides. In some respects it was one of the last battles of the old tactics, still fighting the last war. A cavalry action in 1917 would have been pointless slaughter. Mind, so were most of the infantry advances. Horses were used as transport, and lugging around field guns throughout the war - they were more capable than vehicles in the conditions. Those were supplemented with the narrow gauge trench railways. Internal combustion wasn't yet up to replacing all those uses.
- benj111 7y ago
  "Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle." You seem to be describing mounted infantry rather than cavalry. Mounted infantry fought on foot, they didn't charge into battle. They also equipped soldiers with bicycles when would have had a similar effect.
  - smegger001 7y ago
    horses can go though terrain no bike ever could
    - benj111 7y ago
      And the obverse is true also. Mounted infantry are typically about speed of movement, similar to bicycles. Each still has slightly different trade-offs
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Horses where still useful outside of battle in WWII. They were still useful in battle in WW2. My regiment fought on horseback during WW2. And the US still trains soldiers to fight on horseback to this day. > Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. Yes but that’s not cavalry is it - that’s just an infanteer on a horse.
- rangibaby 7y ago
  > Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. man + 30 kg of gear (standard for US) is already approaching the upper limit of what a horse can carry. Horses are easy to spook and hurt. Donkeys are total badasses in comparison.
  - b_tterc_p 7y ago
    Are they badasses or just immovably tame?

Retric 7y ago

Cavalry actually was used very effectively in WWI, for example the Battle of Mons. It was still quite devastating outside of trench warfare, which was why there where still some cavalry units at the start of WWII. Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. That can apply to just about any heavy but still man portable weapon. PS: Horses where still useful outside of battle in WWII. Hell, America was occasionally using donkey’s in Afghanistan.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Yeah but Mons was the opening weeks of the war before the entrenchment and stagnancy on both sides. In some respects it was one of the last battles of the old tactics, still fighting the last war. A cavalry action in 1917 would have been pointless slaughter. Mind, so were most of the infantry advances. Horses were used as transport, and lugging around field guns throughout the war - they were more capable than vehicles in the conditions. Those were supplemented with the narrow gauge trench railways. Internal combustion wasn't yet up to replacing all those uses.
benj111 7y ago
"Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle." You seem to be describing mounted infantry rather than cavalry. Mounted infantry fought on foot, they didn't charge into battle. They also equipped soldiers with bicycles when would have had a similar effect.
- smegger001 7y ago
  horses can go though terrain no bike ever could
  - benj111 7y ago
    And the obverse is true also. Mounted infantry are typically about speed of movement, similar to bicycles. Each still has slightly different trade-offs
chrisseaton 7y ago
> Horses where still useful outside of battle in WWII. They were still useful in battle in WW2. My regiment fought on horseback during WW2. And the US still trains soldiers to fight on horseback to this day. > Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. Yes but that’s not cavalry is it - that’s just an infanteer on a horse.
rangibaby 7y ago
> Consider a man lugging around a 35lb anti tank rifle, ammunition, and gear would have loved to have a horse. man + 30 kg of gear (standard for US) is already approaching the upper limit of what a horse can carry. Horses are easy to spook and hurt. Donkeys are total badasses in comparison.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  Are they badasses or just immovably tame?