Is there any way in which the US Army could've fully deployed its cavalry formations into combat on horseback ? What PODs would be required to facilitate the appearance of US cav regts on the field in France during 1917-18 ? In WWII, the 26th Cav Regt of the Philippine Scouts were the last horse-mounted US Army unit to see action, covering the retreat to Bataan during Jan 1942, including with Lt Edwin Ramsey's troop leading the last cav charge in US military hist against numerically superior Jap forces at Morong. But OTL for the rest of the war, other existing US Cav formations were converted to other arms, esp with the 1st Cav Div 1ST TEAM serving as inf in the PTO during 1943-45, and the all-black 2nd Cav Div being converted to service units shortly after being deployed to North Africa in mid-1943. What feasible PODs could occur for the US Army to have retained and employed horse-mounted cavalry during WWII ?
Mounted US cavalry in WWI, WWII ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
No way, except to get rid of the machine guns and the barbed wire, and in WW2 the tanks.
Grey Wolf
Donor
For the First World War the following options exist :-
1. Declare war earlier, e.g. in 1915, and the cavalry may then have been used on the Western Front in attempted breakthroughs after the bombardments of trench positions. It would be as futile as Haig's intentions at the Somme most likely, but its a possibility
2. Send them elsewhere - this probably requires greater Allied weakness in another theatre which threatens the entire war effort. One supposes that if Salonika fell and the Allies were being forced back into Northern Greece, then US cavalry could find themselves deployed against German Uhlans. Or maybe in the Levant if for some reason Suez is threatened.
3. Have the USA decide to intervene decisively in Russia. Perhaps the Whites in the South win a major victory, and instead of abandoning them the Allies send in their armies via the Black Sea. Thus US cavalry taking Moscow in alliance with Deniken ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
1. Declare war earlier, e.g. in 1915, and the cavalry may then have been used on the Western Front in attempted breakthroughs after the bombardments of trench positions. It would be as futile as Haig's intentions at the Somme most likely, but its a possibility
2. Send them elsewhere - this probably requires greater Allied weakness in another theatre which threatens the entire war effort. One supposes that if Salonika fell and the Allies were being forced back into Northern Greece, then US cavalry could find themselves deployed against German Uhlans. Or maybe in the Levant if for some reason Suez is threatened.
3. Have the USA decide to intervene decisively in Russia. Perhaps the Whites in the South win a major victory, and instead of abandoning them the Allies send in their armies via the Black Sea. Thus US cavalry taking Moscow in alliance with Deniken ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Donor
Brilliantlight said:
Yes, if the US entered the war in 1915 then the cavalry divisions could well have been ear-marked for the same kind of breakthrough that Haig was still hoping to use the British divisions for in 1916
An interesting aspect of this is that if the AEF deployed to France in 1915, and then were used in this way in 1916 it may WELL be that that a breakthrough was made, and that the cavalry was able to exploit it. Haig would be exonerated/praised, and you would have US cavalry forces sweeping into Alsace-Lorraine in the Allied counter-offensive that wins the war...
Grey Wolf
I definitely think a cavalry unit CAN STILL be useful in certain situation nowadays (e.g. Afghanistan) to track down guerrillas etc.
During WW! there was NO WAY a cavalry unit could be useful on the Western front - less so in the East.
During WW2 it could prove VERY useful in the battle of the Bulge, at Hurtgen, in the Eifel; there cavalry would prove faster than jeeps and tanks, and useful to spare the torment of neverending wanderings in 2-feet-high snow to infantry.
Armed with automatic rifles, machine guns and light mortars, cavalry could still be a viable combat force in forest or mountain warfare (just like in extremely wide open spaces against non tank-backed, non artillery-backed infantry units, like seen in Russia).
During WW! there was NO WAY a cavalry unit could be useful on the Western front - less so in the East.
During WW2 it could prove VERY useful in the battle of the Bulge, at Hurtgen, in the Eifel; there cavalry would prove faster than jeeps and tanks, and useful to spare the torment of neverending wanderings in 2-feet-high snow to infantry.
Armed with automatic rifles, machine guns and light mortars, cavalry could still be a viable combat force in forest or mountain warfare (just like in extremely wide open spaces against non tank-backed, non artillery-backed infantry units, like seen in Russia).
basileus said:
I don't think cavalry would of been very useful during the Bulge, considering the freezing weather and "2 feet high snow" at the time. A horse is also much more unpredictable than a tank. Horses tends to freak out when walking into a mine field, or being bombard by artillery and aircrafts. And let's say they did move faster than the tanks, so what? What huge damage can they possibly cause by themselves without supplies?
Actually I think the cavalry proof useful in the Eastern Front during WWI, consider that front was fluctuating a lot more than the West, and mobility can and actually did become a factor. Germans had quite a bit of success in the Eastern Front with their cavalry.
Good for tracking down guerrilla? I think riding a horse around Iraq or Afghan right now, is like wearing a hugh sign saying, "shoot me, I'm an idiot" with an arrown point at him. It's already hard enough fighting as an infantry over there, you do not need to be standing an extra five feet above everyone so a sniper can get an easier shot.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, clearly the US military does not agree with you! US special forces in Afghanistan HAVE been using cavalry - heck, somewhere I have several articles cut from newspapers about it because it fascinated me ! I guess the rocky terrain, the lack of supply points etc make it far more ideal territory for horses than for any kind of armoured vehicle.
And why should not the Western Front offer some use for cavalry ? If they DID achieve a breakthrough, the trenches, the artillery are far less a problem once they are beyond static warfare.
oops, phone
Grey Wolf
And why should not the Western Front offer some use for cavalry ? If they DID achieve a breakthrough, the trenches, the artillery are far less a problem once they are beyond static warfare.
oops, phone
Grey Wolf
Brilliantlight
Banned
knightyknight said:
It would say to me "I am one of 10,000 (or whatever) people riding on a horse in the hell hole known as Afghanistan or even Iraq". Riding on horseback is not exactly rare in those places especially in Afghanistan. How do you think these people are going long distances with crappy roads and little money?
Grey Wolf said:
I stand corrected about the Afghan comment. Horses are our friends. And I'm sure if we ever fight guerilla in the desert, we'll start talking about how incredibly useful camels are in modern combat.
The Western Front was static for like three years. And when there was a break through, there's usually another trench not too far behind it. It's not until the German's start to collapse in 1918 when huge breakthrought that you were talking about happened.
Last edited:
Tom_B said:
But light armor vehicle and motorize infantry can probably do the same job, correct?
Besides. When worse comes to worse, you could eat your horse/camel. Can't say that for a humvee.knightyknight said:
DominusNovus said:Besides. When worse comes to worse, you could eat your horse/camel. Can't say that for a humvee.
Hey if you are in that bad of a shape, they may eat you.
(before I get bombard with posts, yes, I know horse or camel do not eat human)