Hey, I'm not saying cavalry charges didn't work. Against an irregular enemy that doesn't know how to stand and fire three rounds a minute (or that does not possess effective weaponry), cavalry charges are just fine. The Charge of the Light Brigade managed to accomplish its objective--lots of them died, sure, but that's war. It's just that armored vehicles are a hell of a lot harder to disable, and sometimes it's best to let the tanks roll through or just call in an airstrike. Horses are kind of fragile, compared to armor.

Yeah, nowadays cavalry is really only useful for covert ops, formal events, and some therapy methods. And, in some militaries, possibly for utility purposes (e.g. pulling supply carts), though I wouldn't be surprised if basically every current military has switched over to cars & such for that.

although slower compared to mechanized supply they have the advantage of requiring less supply.

Motor vehicles require gasoline/diesel/other fuel. Horses just need to be fed.

However, fire a bullet at an armored car and it goes *ping*. Fire a bullet at a horse and it dies.

Technology has its advantages.

Generally speaking a lot of people, even trained soldiers panic at the sight of someone charging at them and screaming like a madman. It's the reason why very often at <10m a person with a knife has a very good chance of taking down an armed opponent.

Of course, if you have an APC and IFV you have no reason to do a traditional charge. Those will be from now on relegated to only urban warfare I'd guess. Where they still happen from time to time.



Cavalry is amazing the police force. It might not be as great in the military in traditional military roles, perhaps apart from certain mobile infantries. But in the police force it shines.

ed: my point was that a horse can graze and live off the land, most vehicles since the discontinued use of steam power cant, so the horse also has an advantage, under specific circumstances.

what i was NOT saying in any shape or form was that horses were superior to modern vehicles, just that they have a single advantage that comes to play when out of supply.

Horses have an edge only in terrain that can support them by grazing, which soaks up time. There's a fair number of places in the world that you can't graze horses particularly well.

I´m not sure if this belongs here or in a new topic.
After re-reading some things about medieval armor, weapons and the society at that time for this thread, I stumbled upon that Loroi timeline in the Insider section.
Especially this bit:

So because of that I´m basically thinking the whole day about how Loroi Middle Ages would have looked like. Maybe with some kind of male "damsel in distress" and female Minnesingers? And how would their wars looked like at that time? Some kind of "Rape of the Sabine Men"?
I don´t know, but I can´t get this pictures out of my head right now.
Sorry for the interruption.

Not to mention that a military warhorse will have issues on just grazing. They need a bit more.

But yeah, light mulish horses might work on certain terrains for a long term mobile infantry. But that sort of means squat to any semi modern army, since they will generally move to and from FOBs pretty quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II





Cavalry can move faster than infantry through some terrain such as forests and mountains, where tanks are less mobile. They can also carry or pull loads that would be impractical for infantry, through those same terrains that would be impractical for motorized units.

But the salient point is that horses in WWI and later were used for transportation, not as a weapon. The cavalry, when it existed, was a scouting unit that dismounted to fight. The cited examples of cavalry charges were unusual exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Cavalr ... Kingdom%29

4th Cavalry Brigade (United Kingdom)

4th Cavalry Brigade
Active 2 September 1939 - 1 August 1941
Country Great Britain
Branch British Army
Type Yeomanry
Role Cavalry
Size Brigade

Part of World War I
2nd Cavalry Division

World War II
1st Cavalry Division

Engagements World War I

Battle of Mons
Affair of Cérizy
Battle of the Marne
Battle of the Aisne
Battle of Messines
Capture of Meteren
Battle of Gheluvelt
Battle of St. Julien
Battle of Bellewaarde
First Battle of the Scarpe
Capture of Bourlon Wood
Battle of St. Quentin
Battle of Amiens
Battle of Albert
Second Battle of Bapaume
Battle of the Canal du Nord
Battle of the St. Quentin Canal
Battle of Beaurevoir
Battle of Cambrai
Battle of the Sambre
Capture of Mons [1]
World War II
Anglo-Iraqi War
Syria-Lebanon Campaign
Battle of Palmyra

The 4th Cavalry Brigade was formation of Regiments of the British Army during the First World War, which was formed again in 1939 from Yeomanry Regiments for service during the Second World War. During both conflicts it served as a part of the 1st Cavalry Division.

World War I

The 4th Cavalry Brigade, was part of the 2nd Cavalry Division, during World War I, together with the 3rd Cavalry Brigade and the 5th Cavalry Brigade, served on the Western Front in France from 1914 to 1918.[1][2]
Commander

General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough [1]

Formation

Regt of Household Cavalry (consisting of various squadrons)
6th Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers)
3rd (King's Own) Hussars
1st Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars [1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons

The first contact between the two armies occurred on 21 August, when a British bicycle reconnaissance team encountered a German unit near Obourg. One of the cyclists, Private John Parr, was killed, thereby becoming the first British fatality of the war.[22] The first substantial action occurred a day later, on the morning of 22 August. At 6:30 a.m., the 4th Dragoon Guards laid an ambush for a patrol of German lancers outside the village of Casteau, to the northeast of Mons. When the Germans spotted the trap and fell back, a troop of the dragoons, led by Captain Hornby, gave chase, followed by the rest of his squadron, all with drawn sabres. The retreating Germans led the British to a larger force of lancers, who they promptly charged, and Captain Hornby became the first British soldier to kill an enemy in the Great War, fighting on horseback with sword against lance. After a further pursuit of a few miles, the Germans turned and fired upon the British cavalrymen, at which point the Dragoons dismounted and opened fire. Drummer Edward Thomas is reputed to have fired the first shot of the war for the British Army, hitting a German trooper.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %281918%29

The attackers captured the first German position, advancing about 4,000 yards (3,700 m) by about 7:30 am[18] In the centre, supporting units following the leading divisions attacked the second objective a further 2 miles (3.2 km) distant. Australian units reached their first objectives by 7:10 am, and by 8:20 am, the Australian 4th and 5th and the Canadian 4th Divisions passed through the initial breach in the German lines.[18] The third phase of the attack was assigned to infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks. However, the infantry was able to carry out this final step unaided.[18] The Allies penetrated well to the rear of the German defences and cavalry now continued the advance, one brigade in the Australian sector and two cavalry divisions in the Canadian sector.

The first battle you describe was one of the first in the war, before the trenches stretched across Europe. The cavalry engagement described was a skirmish between scouting parties.

The second battle was part of the last great offensive of the war, when the German lines were broken and Allied forces were actually moving forward. The cavalry undoubtedly did a splendid job exploiting the breach, but the presence of tanks and artillery probably contributed more to the actual breakthrough than anything else.

When I think about cavalry in WWII, thats the first thing that comes to my mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty



Cavalry vs armored vehicles: never a good idea.

You site an example of cavalry being used in one of the first battles and used in one of the last battles of WWI as a rebuttal to the notion of cavalry usage during WWI, not as an example of their continuing usage throughtout the War on the Western front as being a sign of their continuing endurance in a dedicated cavalry brigade. This without even looking at other fronts such as the Eastern Front or the Middle East and North Africa where dozens of dedicated cavalry brigades were in usage, interesting. Your "logic" of trying to suggest that because cavalry weren't used to run into no man's land and clear trenches and were used in concentration to penetrate a breach in a defensive line, is your idea of a rebutal to the notion of their usage as a military fighting force is beyond my ability to respond to beyond merely restating your position back to you.

You know, with the advent and gradual improvement of antiballistic fabrics 'bullet proof vests' and the like, cavalry could be due for a renaissance in terms of military usage. Small tanks are too expensive to be worthwhile using on the battlefield, while the high mobility of horses in unforgiving terrain combined with resistance and protection from low calibre weaponry could be a major boon.

Just keep them away from the 50 cal machine guns.

(one of the biggest advantages? A horse has less need for range of movement, so unlike humans they wouldn't have large weak points around the shoulders/neck.)

Using horses (and where appropriate camels) as transportation through rough terrain will likely become a standard part of military doctrine again (though not a major part, since it only makes sense in some terrain), but not where intense fighting is expected. Horses are skittish, and have to be specially familiarized to the sound of gunfire (one of my grandfathers used to do it).

In a gunfight, a horse is not an asset. Being on horseback makes you more vulnerable, due to the fact that you're further from the ground, and therefor have less cover that you can use. Traveling long distances, observing your surroundings, carrying heavy loads, and other such tasks can benefit from horses (want to ambush some light or medium armor? try horse-transported mortars and recoilless-rifles. For heavy armor upgrade to horse-portable missiles), but horses no longer have a meaningful place on the battlefield itself, since they're large targets that can't do much to actively participate in the actual fighting.

A question:

Did the Loroi have any sort of equivalent to horse cavalry?

Aside from beasts of burden, have the Loroi made significant use of domesticated animals in warfare? Attack dogs, cavalry horses, war elephants, sopwith camels, bear artillery, fire bats, anything of that nature?

on a slight tangent, other domesticated animals in warfare, dogs....do not underestimate the use of these guys.

dolphins however never really wanted to work however....

That´s because they´re intelligent.

None of the Loroi sister worlds had a horse equivalent. Deinar's land animals were almost all descended from Soia-Liron livestock, so there are few large land predators (other than the Loroi themselves). There is an elephant-sized herd animal that was sometimes used as a beast of burden, but its temperament and slow speed was not suited to combat. There is a boar-like predator descended from the miros that is sometimes domesticated, but it's not a social animal and there is nothing like the bond between humans and dogs.

Perrein has a wide variety of native animals, but nothing suitable for riding, and the jungle terrain wouldn't favor cavalry tactics even if there were. But the Perrein Loroi did capture and train many different local organisms, some of which were used in combat. Perrein warfare was often unconventional and asymmetrical.

On Taben, the higher life forms were nearly all in the oceans.

The Loroi will be SO confused when they see everything we've domesticated. "If you domesticated THIS, then why didn't you domesticate that thing with the horn on it's nose?!?"

"You try getting close to it."

Yeah, there hasn't been too much info on war rhinos, but with some sensitive skin, bad eye sight, difficulty getting them to do what you want, and their natural tendency to want to gore, trample into paste then trample again the first thing that's within ten feet.

A couple of posters seem to think that horses require less supply than motor vehicles. I don't think you appreciate the logistics of horse-powered warfare.

Mounted cavalry requires a great deal of supplies, much more than motorised armour. Horses need to be fed even when unused - they can't be turned off. Cavalry can only survive on grazing if they are constantly on the move, and through grasslands. In any other situation the horses need supplies, and much more both in weight and volume than the soldiers. Don't forget, each cavalryman must have two or three horses, to account for battlefield casualties, disease and accidents.

Horse-drawn transport, plying fixed routes, must be supplied with fodder (by horse-drawn transport and etc.), and is slower and can carry much less load than motor transport. Petrol and diesel have a very high energy density. Motorised transport can carry much heavier loads faster and more reliably. Horses cannot be worked constantly without suffering huge loss rates, so you need a lot more horses in order to rest them between jobs.

In the American Civil War, an artillery horse's prescribed ration was 14 pounds of hay and 12 pounds of grain per day. All of that has to be brought up by horse-drawn transport, which must also be fed. And we haven't considered water at all, yet.