When/how exactly did cavalry die out?
- Thread starter ChaoticBrilliance
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Banned
Certainly a predictable response, however I don't think it's inaccurate to call soldiers on horseback calvary just because they're not in the European guise. The Afghan soldiers pictured fight from their horses, charge the enemy, what more do you want?
The guy who posted the pic said that the guys are US troops.If that's the case,then the troops most likely dismount to fight.
Admiral Beez
Banned
It was me. If you read the link provided, it says the US troops are operating with Afghan mounted soldiers.
In the British army at least it evolved, hence the split of tanks into cruiser and infantry. And at least in North Africa, cruisers loved their charges. Often got shot to pieces by AT guns, but still loved their charges.
Weren't there Indian camel troops fighting in Arabia and North Africa in WW1 and WW2?
marathag
Banned
See 2nd Lieutenant George S Patton of the 13th Cavalry Regiment using Dodge Brothers Automobiles in the Mexican Incursion, chasing after Pancho Villa
Motorized Dragoons.
RodentRevolution
Banned
That is a tough one to answer not helped by the fact that as pointed out above cavalry increasingly conducted action dismounted. However there were several wars in which both sides field cavalry in significant numbers such as the China v Japan and Spanish Civil War where troops might have engaged mounted against one another.
Staying together in a tight formation and using lots of pointy things against cavalry weren't a new invention by the Swiss-I suspect it was discovered shortly after horses were first used in warfare. It's also quite effective against infantry, and not completely foolproof against cavalry either.
As always, cavalry were most effective when used as part of a combined arms system. For example, at Falkirk, the English men-at-arms swept their Scottish counterparts off the field. The longbowmen then shot the Scottish pikes to pieces with impunity, at which point the men-at-arms swept back in to finish the flagging scots. At Waterloo, French cavalry forced British units into square where they could then be hammered with artillery. At Marignano, French Gendarmes succeeded at throwing back Swiss attacks on the artillery, letting the artillery devastate the tightly packed Swiss formations.
Redbeard
Banned
Of course not, spear armed men on foot were there before men on horses. The important part probably is "staying together", which involved morale beyond most medieval footmen and next training and equipment aimed at countering heavy cavalry. The Swiss pikemen were not just polearmed, but used halberds with "hooks" to grab the knight's armour and drag them from their horses.
The co-operation of the various arms on the battlefield always has been decisive and in a tactical context this usually is executed as "fire and movement". When heavy cavalry reigned vs. ordinary footmen movement had the upper hand though, and when musketry became refined firepower gradually took over. Not without "bumps" however. By early 17th century heavy cavalry had been reduced to riding up close to the enemy formation and discharging pistols until Gustav Adolph reinvented the heavy cavalry charging with cold steel. These heavy and partially armoured cavalry units (Cuirassiers) were proud parts of most armies until late 19th century but at the moment I don't recall any successful use after the Napoleonic wars and even here only under very narrow conditions and with heavy losses (like Wagram).
The musket and later the Minie rifle and especially rifled artillery doomed cavalry as the "movement" instrument on the battlefield. Initially infantry in columns became the new "movement" supported by skirmisher and artillery fire and worked best where the charging infantry was well co-ordinated with (rifled) artillery. In a few decades Minie rifles were more widespread than rifled artillery and this really put everything upside down, as the infantry now could outrange the artillery!
The machinegun of course didn't make the "movement" part any more easy, but IMHO railways were more important in the final doom of cavalry and temporary doom of movement. Railways meant that the defender very fast could pour reinforcement and not at least artillery with huge loads of ammo in front of an enemy breakthrough but the attacker moved as slowly as in ancient times - even slower due to the terrain broken by shell craters, and couldn't bring much morer than they could carry.
Cavalry as part of offensive doctrine and cavalry charge as a tactic was a major part of western armies up until WW1. Use of cavalry during the war continued because a) it was what they had and b) it was what they knew. As soon as war was over practically every western army went motorized as soon as they could afford it and not counting die hard Luddites, attitude towards cavalry seems to be "Yeah lets not do that any more.". If first world war had happened 10 years earlies then cavalry would have declined 10 years earlier because the technology that made it obsolete was there.
So bit like bayonet charge or telegraphy (morse code) cavalry has gone from "Major element of our army" to "Nice to have in certain situations"
So bit like bayonet charge or telegraphy (morse code) cavalry has gone from "Major element of our army" to "Nice to have in certain situations"
Saphroneth
Banned
Nice film scene - and it points out in a very practical way why cavalry charges were still useful in the days of long ranged weaponry. Several hundred mad Ozzies charging you is so scary you can forget to reset your sights, and then all the shots go over the heads of the enemy! (FWIW the same thing is supposed to have happened to Custer, except with Sioux instead.)
Saphroneth
Banned
I disagree - the 1905 Russo-Japanese War did not see the decline of cavalry in the Russian army, at least not to my knowledge.
Did I see the use of a running tether to throw a horse there (the somersault at about 2.20m)? I thought that had been banned before 1987 because it broke so many necks.
Maybe so, I dunno how they did the stunts but its spectauarly done none the less.
Those American horse soldiers in Afghanistan circa 2002 were mostly USAF forward air controllers. They were supported by various Special Forces and CIA types. In turn USAF FACs were supporting Northern Alliance troops (Tadjiks, Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc.) who were mostly horsemen from the central Asian steppes.
A typical battle involved NA horsemen locating Taliban positions, then the USAF bombed Taliban trenches back into the Stone Age. NA finished the battle when they charged Taliban positions on horseback firing their AKs and PKMs as they approached the guilty bastards ... er .... Taliban.
NA mostly fought as light infantry who travelled to battle on horseback, along goat tracks. Afghanistan has few roads strong enough to support heavy trucks, especially in the mountains. NA had few heavy weapons (tanks or artillery) so they relied on the USAF to dislodge Taliban from trenches and shoot up Taliban supply columns.
A typical battle involved NA horsemen locating Taliban positions, then the USAF bombed Taliban trenches back into the Stone Age. NA finished the battle when they charged Taliban positions on horseback firing their AKs and PKMs as they approached the guilty bastards ... er .... Taliban.
NA mostly fought as light infantry who travelled to battle on horseback, along goat tracks. Afghanistan has few roads strong enough to support heavy trucks, especially in the mountains. NA had few heavy weapons (tanks or artillery) so they relied on the USAF to dislodge Taliban from trenches and shoot up Taliban supply columns.
Last edited: