How long can we keep horse cavalry viable?

I personally think the whole idea of a massed, coordinated cavalry charge was rendered essentially obsolete once the Maxim machine gun went into production in the late 1880's.

Interesting then that during quite a number of WW1 charges that machine-guns were captured by the cavalry. Close order knee to knee charges were certainly obsolete by the turn of the 20th Century but that was arguably more to do with artillery and the increased use of barbed wire on the battlefield.
 
South Africa used horse in their "bush war" in Southwest Africa, more for traditional tasks of scouting and "raiding", but also as a light infantry with stealthy mobility in the right terrain. That may mean only Counter-insurgency Operations late in the century, but even through to the Second World War horses could move in terrain that vehicles could not, were stealthier and had other advantages to keep them viable, but it is a niche role even before the First World War began in many respects.

Indeed. The way to keep horses in military service is to have a poor country fighting a counterinsurgent campaign against a poorly equipped enemy across a lot of challenging terrain. A richer country could use helicopters for nearly everything except tracking (though I've been told there was at least one A-1 Skyraider pilot in Vietnam who could follow spoor from the air), and if the terrain wasn't rough and broken light wheeled vehicles could do the job.

How about Mexico fighting against a US-backed insurgency in the north?
 
As much as the then modern rifle round could kill a horse, indeed I believe it was in part the consideration for rounds as potent as 8mm Mauser or .30-06, the real demise for cavalry was by most accounts barbed wire. It destroyed the mobility of the horses in the West but allowed cavalry and mounted infantry to be relevant longer in the East where it was less continuously employed. It was used heavily in the Russian Civil War and both sides in WW2 in Russia. I could see it being relied on longer by the US Army patrolling the Mexican border lands. (Obviously horse transport had a longer life). And so on. Thus my comment about SADF usage, you need the right conditions, but horses are stealthy compared to a loud diesel truck or APC, can alert the rider to danger, put the rider up to get a good vantage point, navigate terrain well, etc. Increasingly all-terrain vehicles supplement or simply replace the horses. And once you can afford helicopters then you reduce horses to ceremonial and specialist applications at best.
 
As much as the then modern rifle round could kill a horse, indeed I believe it was in part the consideration for rounds as potent as 8mm Mauser or .30-06, the real demise for cavalry was by most accounts barbed wire.

In the early 1900s the British Army found from experience from the Boer War and veterinary tests that 'small' calibre rifle rounds (.303, 8mm Mauser etc.) would not reliably stop a charging horse unless it hit a leg bone, or a major organ. There are numerous account from the period of horses collapsing and dying after a successful charge.

Horses apparently don't suffer from reaction shock in the same way we humans do. I.e. they don't think 'OMG! I've just been shot!'
 
In the early 1900s the British Army found from experience from the Boer War and veterinary tests that 'small' calibre rifle rounds (.303, 8mm Mauser etc.) would not reliably stop a charging horse unless it hit a leg bone, or a major organ. There are numerous account from the period of horses collapsing and dying after a successful charge.

Horses apparently don't suffer from reaction shock in the same way we humans do. I.e. they don't think 'OMG! I've just been shot!'

Probably a good survival trait. Unlike humans who, when something bites them, need to decide whether to kick its head in or peg it, the only correct response for a horse is to go to plaid and hope the wolf/leopard/angry badger falls off during the mad dash towards the horizon.
 
Horses apparently don't suffer from reaction shock in the same way we humans do. I.e. they don't think 'OMG! I've just been shot!'
Equally they have a healthy respect for long pointy things and will not risk them which is why a squadron of heavy cavalry with over a hundred tons of horse, man and kit was not able to simply squash their way into an infantry square bristling with bayonets. In the wild they will not go into dense scrub willingly as they need open space to flee if threatened.
 
As much as the then modern rifle round could kill a horse, indeed I believe it was in part the consideration for rounds as potent as 8mm Mauser or .30-06, the real demise for cavalry was by most accounts barbed wire. It destroyed the mobility of the horses in the West but allowed cavalry and mounted infantry to be relevant longer in the East where it was less continuously employed. It was used heavily in the Russian Civil War and both sides in WW2 in Russia. I could see it being relied on longer by the US Army patrolling the Mexican border lands. (Obviously horse transport had a longer life). And so on. Thus my comment about SADF usage, you need the right conditions, but horses are stealthy compared to a loud diesel truck or APC, can alert the rider to danger, put the rider up to get a good vantage point, navigate terrain well, etc. Increasingly all-terrain vehicles supplement or simply replace the horses. And once you can afford helicopters then you reduce horses to ceremonial and specialist applications at best.

Patton had better luck patrolling in Mexico after he switched to using Dodge Brothers Touring cars from horses

Nearly all of the post-WWII examples I can think of are paramilitary police services. The advantages in stealth and tracking make up for the disadvantages in a low-scale counterinsurgency campaign.

The Russian cavalry units in WWII are a useful counter example, and the Chinese had some horse-mounted units in Korea. In that case, they were basically just using horses to make up for a lack of motorized transport that could deal with cold weather.

One more thought on the Southern Africa use of horses is that horses would have been much more useful for counterinsurgents if the guerrillas were mounted, to facilitate pursuit. A Rhodesian style bush war in the Chaco or North America might see more horses than we did in Africa.
 
I've once read in book about Battle of Moscow memories of German solider who witnessed charge of Turkmen cavalry division against German positions-half of division charged, all cavalrymen were killed before they reached German lines. What was Soviet reaction? They send second half of this division to battle with the same result.
 
I've once read in book about Battle of Moscow memories of German solider who witnessed charge of Turkmen cavalry division against German positions-half of division charged, all cavalrymen were killed before they reached German lines. What was Soviet reaction? They send second half of this division to battle with the same result.

Yeah, the Russians didn't try cavalry charges after 1941.
 
It's not ASB, but I think the OP can be attained via nuclear/chemical/bio war. A global population reduction of 90-95% and a total destruction of infrastructure won't make guns, internal combustion engines, or any modern technology magically disappear from existence. However, building, replacing, and fueling machine will be difficult. Meanwhile, the horse simply is powred by eating radioactively tainted grass (the horses that survive likely have immunity to the bio weapons in this scenario.) So, being that we had horse-driven warfare when the world population was about 60 - 100 million, we would see the same ITTL. The difference is that the guys riding the horses will have bazookas, assault rifles, ground to air missiles, and possibly even blunt objects--whatever can be mustered because man always fights.
 
In the early 1900s the British Army found from experience from the Boer War and veterinary tests that 'small' calibre rifle rounds (.303, 8mm Mauser etc.) would not reliably stop a charging horse unless it hit a leg bone, or a major organ. There are numerous account from the period of horses collapsing and dying after a successful charge.

Horses apparently don't suffer from reaction shock in the same way we humans do. I.e. they don't think 'OMG! I've just been shot!'

I have both cared for and ridden horses, they are an interesting animal, but I do not think I would prefer taking them into battle and having them maimed and killed. We humans choose the fight, they simply trusted us. Better to see the damned truck shot to pieces.
 
Top