Revival of the cavalry

[rupol2000]

Bullshit! Only 15 million military personnel were killed in battle.

you are a complete idiot. This is exactly no one count, it is believed that the total victims are somewhere in the range of 50-80 million, but it is clear that mostly the military, and not civilians, died. And the military were mostly infantrymen. In Russia alone, 27 million died(including civilians). China also has about 25-30 million victims
it is foolish to assume that most of them were civilians

 

[rupol2000]

even in the 1920s, the Cossacks still successfully used checkers and spears against firearms

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see no reason to neglect the cavalry in modern conditions of war, in the field it is not worse than the infantry, outperforms the infantry in speed and maneuverability, and nothing prevents the manufacture of body armor for horses.
It seems that the cavalry was abolished not for military, but for ideological reasons, and it needs to be restored.
Moreover, on the American Great Plains, there are ideal conditions for the maintenance of the equestrian army and there are equestrian specialists and riders

Seeing as we're moving away from physical people fighting anyway, why do we need horses to fight?

We have planes with no pilots in the sky, we'll have automated vehicles and the like. The only reason to have people on the ground is to make decisions and they're better protected in armored vehicles than on horseback

 

[rupol2000]

the modern military "Tiktoker" has many stereotypes. In fact, even archers could find a niche for themselves in modern weapons. The bow also has some advantages, for example, it can be effective in diversions, when silence is important.

 

[rupol2000]

Seeing as we're moving away from physical people fighting anyway, why do we need horses to fight?

We have planes with no pilots in the sky, we'll have automated vehicles and the like. The only reason to have people on the ground is to make decisions and they're better protected in armored vehicles than on horseback

First of all, for the sake of traditions and the preservation of the equestrian culture and the number of horses.

 

[rupol2000]

Seeing as we're moving away from physical people fighting anyway, why do we need horses to fight?

We have planes with no pilots in the sky, we'll have automated vehicles and the like. The only reason to have people on the ground is to make decisions and they're better protected in armored vehicles than on horseback

No technique can replace the horse in a ground operation when complex tactics are needed. No other technical means can compare with the horse's maneuverability and flexibility. It's like comparing industrial robots and humans. Where mass production of the same type, robots are used, but the robot will not be an engineer and will not even be a maid.

 

[rupol2000]

A horse is not just an appendage of a military man; it is an independent trained military specialist who knows how to fight.

 

[rupol2000]

Horses have been with a man for several thousand years, they served faithfully, how can we now betray them? Did they betray us?

 

[rupol2000]

And what will happen to the horses if they are not used in war? They will simply disappear, they are not needed by anyone except the military. At best they will be raised for meat, but it is sacrilege to eat the meat of heroes. In Antiquity, the wariors buried them in the same grave with them.

 

[rupol2000]

America has an equestrian tradition and a good forage base for horses: the great plains. I see no reason not to revive the cavalry using modern technical means to equip the horse. I see no significant difference with the infantry in this regard. Where is the logic, if we say that the modern army is completely robotic, then what the hell are people doing there then, this is nonsense.
For small operations, horses are far superior to any technical means. Infantry fighting vehicles do not pass everywhere where horses pass easily, they do not provide the speed that a horse can give in combat, and so on.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all, for the sake of traditions and the preservation of the equestrian culture and the number of horses.

That's not a reason.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No technique can replace the horse in a ground operation when complex tactics are needed. No other technical means can compare with the horse's maneuverability and flexibility. It's like comparing industrial robots and humans. Where mass production of the same type, robots are used, but the robot will not be an engineer and will not even be a maid.

It's like saying we don't need horses any more. Because we don't need horses any more.

 

[rupol2000]

It's like saying we don't need horses any more. Because we don't need horses any more.

Real Americans need, let the British go to their swamps and breed frogs and snakes, if they don't like horses

 

[rupol2000]

 

[1srelluc]

I can't find it now but the number of veterinary unit personnel used in WW-2 by the Germans numbered in the tens of thousands.....They were attached to every German division that used horse transport.

If you look at the scale nearly 7 million horses were lost between 1941 - '45 by the Germans. 26K alone were eaten at Stalingrad and the units that supported them were used to fight.

Then you have to feed them:

Depending on the weather and distance traveled, each infantry division needed up to 55 tons of feed per day for its horses. There were more than 750,000 horses in the attacking force in June of 1941 (Soviet Union invasion) and they required 16,350 tons of feed per day.

I'd sooner see that manpower and the resources burned-up to keep horses in the field being put to better use.

In fact the US Army figured it out by taking a lesson from the Italians....Specialized mountain units like the 10th Mountain Division used mules and even local donkeys as pack animals.

There was a remount depot in my AO and they specialized mostly in mules during WW-2.

 

[rupol2000]

Depending on the weather and distance traveled, each infantry division needed up to 55 tons of feed per day for its horses. There were more than 750,000 horses in the attacking force in June of 1941 (Soviet Union invasion) and they required 16,350 tons of feed per day.

For the United States, this is not a problem, there are many steppes with pastures and grain.

 

[1srelluc]

For the United States, this is not a problem, there are many steppes with pastures and grain.

OK so what are you going to use for harness makers and all the other miscellaneous articles produced to keep cavalry in the field? We are not talking about the small scale tack makers of today but harness/tack produced on a industrial scale.

Smaller scale pack animals for specialized units I can see but traditional Cavalry is a non-starter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Real Americans need, let the British go to their swamps and breed frogs and snakes, if they don't like horses

Ah, full blown emotion. No logic, just that cowboy feeling.

Well, now we all know, from Brokeback Mountain, that all Cowboys are gay......

 

[AZrailwhale]

You're an idiot. Rifled weapons were already in the 16th century, and in the 19th century, the few Austro-Hungarian hussars persecuted all the numerous rabble of Napoleon, which he recruited from all over Europe with muskets. Although they also used a firearm. In general, you are right, the horsemen were lose because of the firearms, but not for the reason you are talking about, but because the musketeers could be created from any strata, even recruiting children, because of this, the number of infantry has grown critically.

The rifles you are talking about were lucky to fire one round per minute. And they we’re used in small numbers. The rifles of the ACW used Minie Balls and could fire over four rounds per minute And every man in a hundred man company was armed with one.

 

[Mushroom]

The rifles you are talking about were lucky to fire one round per minute. And they we’re used in small numbers. The rifles of the ACW used Minie Balls and could fire over four rounds per minute And every man in a hundred man company was armed with one.

Everything he just said to be honest made absolutely no sense. Especially as neither side used untrained "rabble". Both the Coalition Forces as well as the French forces were highly trained armies. If the French forces were indeed "rabble", there is no way they would have held out for more than a dozen years against a vastly numerical force.

Yet another example of RuPaul talking out his arse.

And he does not even seem to understand the various terms, mostly trying to use different terms that do not even mean what he thinks they do.

All "muskets" are "firearms", And in the Napoleonic Wars, almost all firearms were rifles other than Napoleon's forces. He simply preferred smoothbore muskets because of the faster reloading times. Which actually worked in his favor during a great many battles, as he used fire and maneuver along with rapid firing far more than most European forces generally did.

And "lucky to fire one round per minute" is an outright lie, as all forces were able to fire at an average of three rounds per minute. For reload times of a minute or longer, you would have to go back over 300 years earlier to the much more cumbersome and primitive matchlock Arquebus of the 15th century.

Hell, the Austrians even had units armed with repeating rifles that could fire up to 30 rounds before they had to be recharged.