Are there an militaries today which still use horses as part of their combat forces?
Watching a documentary (should say propaganda - written in 1942) on the Russian battles against the Germans and amazed by teh number of horses still in use.

As fuel prices go up,,,, you never know

After exhaustive research, military labs determined that the entire horse was unnecessary, with all the critical attributes contained in only one part. Consequently, although you will no longer find horses in the modern military, there is at least one horse's ass in every unit.

the Germans were no strangers to horses for logistics purposes in WW2. IIRC the German use of horsed military units was hugely extensive during the war.

I recall US special forces troops using horses in Afghanistan in 2002/3. Can't recall the source, but I clearly remember seeing pictures and some discussion of it. May even have been here on this grate site.

The US troops were, at that time, serving as advisors to Afghani forces in combat with the Taliban in mountainous areas. The horses were not part of the US TOE, but were provided by the locals and accepted by the US advisors as a necessary adaptation for keeping up with the Afghanis.

-Mark 1

The received wisdom is that at the peak of German mechanization about 75% of German forces were still mostly or completely horse drawn. It's pretty hard, for example, to find a picture of the aftermath of Falaise encirclement that doesn't show several dead horses.

The Bundeswehr still has pack animals, IIRC mainly mules for use in the mountains - there are some areas where vehicles don't go but the mules still can. They are organized in the "Einsatz- und Ausbildungszentrum für Tragtierwesen 230" (roughly translates into Deployment and Training Centre for Pack Animals).
You can find a video (german language) on the right side of this page under Multimedia: http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcx...E%2Fcontent.jsp

They really make those muleskinners earn their eisbein und kartoffeln.

No cite at all. I have been out for so long all of this may have changed.

The US special forces keeps some mule skinners in the reserves. Further, we used to have contingency contracts with at least two firms (one was the company that runs tourists down the Grand Canyon) to provide X number of mules within Y days after mobilization. The mules for Afghanistan came from these contracts.

Shows you it is big Army out there. Lots of strange corners.

The Marines operate a mule-skinners school. Sadly, my Google-Fu is weak tonight, so I can't find a source. I read about it in a "Western Life" magazine a while back. I thought I had posted about it, but the search function comes up blank.

Until fairly recently the South African Army maintained a small mounted infantry capability within 12 SA Infantry Battalion, which also included motorcycle, tracking and dog-handling wings. This was basically a new version of the old 1 South West Africa Specialist Unit (SWASpes) used in COIN ops in SWA/Namibia in the 80s. 12 SAI was disbanded a few years ago; I am not sure on the state of training in equine skills now.

The Rhodesian Army of course had their own mounted infantry unit, known as Grey's Scouts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey's_Scouts

(some inaccuracies on wiki as usual)

http://www.rhodesianforces.org/GreysScoutsRideAgain.htm

Back in the 80s the Italian Alpini troops taking part in NATO fast reaction force manoeuvres in Denmark had mules - I guess very handy in mountainous regions, but rather superflous on the dense roadnet of Zealand - quite photogenic however - which was the main task of NATO fast reaction force back then.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

ISAF troops still patrol quite regularly in mountainous areas unreachable with vehicles (mainly in more peaceful north) with mules/donkeys/horses...sadly I had to participate too...

The PLA still has horse (and camel) cavalry operating in Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang. In some places they're the only way to get to isolated locations in a hurry. No, they're not equipped with lances or sabers.

You know, it shouldn't be too difficult to develop horse-shaped interceptor armor. Horses of medieval heavy cavalry had armor, after all.

Do tell?
Where might one find the TO&E for these units?
They sound quite interesting.

I don't know about the TO&E but I did find this PRC embassy release about a 2006 ant-terror drill that used cavalry:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebn/eng/zgxw/t269156.htm

Looks like they still use flame throwers according to the photos.

Your best bet is to ask around in

http://www.china-defense.com/

Figures I've seen for Wehrmacht usage of horses in World War 2 are:

In 1939 573,000
Total used 2.75 million
Total used on Eastern Front 2.07 million
Total losses 1.7 million

These figures include the mules used by the Gebirgsjäger units, but they were only a small proportion of the totals.

I have also seen photography of oxen and camels in Wehrmacht service.

Wasn't the CIA the worlds largest donkey/mule operating organization in the world in the 80's with Afghanistan and other operations?

I seem to remember reading that the ADF experimented with the use of horses for airfield defence units for a short period in the 1990s. In the end they decided while they could go places that vehicles couldn't, their care and provisioning was more difficult than using 4x4s and quad-bikes. While the terrain around the airbases in the top-end was classed as "difficult" it wasn't impossible to get a vehicle through it.

And then there's the ultimate ATV: boots.

As the British Gendarmerie, ups! I mean Army, continues to unilaterally disarm, and soon to field a tank force of about 350 MBTs, I presume that it must be now be approaching a ratio of 1:1 with the public duties horses of the Household "Division". 1918 – 2008 has a nice symmetry. I consider this greener approach to national defense very much in keeping with the times. I believe there will be now emerge a new doctrine of "bio" warfare which should please CND (I never did believe in nuclear families anyway). Uhh.......ahhh…. "Bio Warfare".......where have I heard that before? Dear, dear, dear.

At Ft Irwin we sometimes used horses as OPFOR. They are good for recon, small raids, and other ops in broken terrain. I have even used them to execute a flank screen during a defense of a strongpoint. Think Red Dawn and hopw horses were used there.

I bet it drove the visiting units nuts, too.

I'm trying to imagine a horse with a yellow flasher mounted on a post mounted somewhere ... maybe on an enlarged/raised saddle horn?

Does it get the simfire projectors? (Mounted above the tail?)

-Mark 1

Romanian army still use horses/mules for the Mountain Hunter brigades. It seems that nothing can reach the mobility and the carrying capacity of a horse/mule in Mountainous terrain.

The carrying capacity is actually minute, but something is always better then nothing.

Not so sure... they need like 3 horses to pack a mountain cannon..

Rough rule of thumb in the Swiss Army was that a well trained horse could carry about 150 kg's for 2 hours or about 100 kg's for 4-6 (going uphill).

Which gun is this? I thought most mountain guns broke down into 4-8 loads.
Is the useful carrying capacity of a mule significantly different from a horse in this role?

The rule of thumb is 100lbs for a horse and 150lb for a mule, Or at least I heard that somewhere.
Another place horsemen are commonly used is police work. I read this somewhere: a mounted cop is equal to 10 on foot in a riot. Itmight be true. They are aslo using in the Border Patrol, they are the quietest way to move around down there.

Romanian 98mm mountain howitzer or ex-Yugo 76mm M48B1 (both were in use by Romanian mountain units).



Mules have way more endurance.

I recall see Golani Bde with Llamas?

Last week I saw a special on TV about USMC mountain training, prior to them heading over to Iraq/Afghanistan. Filmed about four years ago, it plainly showed them using pack mules to move supplies up and down the rough terrain; I know it surprised the hell out of me!

See post #10. USMC runs a mule-skinner school. My Google-Fu is stronger tonight: http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2005/09/m...in_war_effo.htm

I've always wondered about that. I'm a fan of Alpacas myself. I wonder if any South American militaries use either? Perhaps Chile?

I actually have a fair amount of experience in this. What I've seen that has been most effective is essentially "mixed arms" with some horse mounted police supporting 'infantry' as it were. Hard to quantify. I will say that horse polices utility can be effectively neutralized by very few people with knowledge and a little guts. Horses can also be difficult to operate in some urban terrain.

Thanks much!

You are always such a helpful font of amazing information.

Quick line I've found: http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-8324...f-says-llama-lo

IIRC there was an article in one of the major newspapers here, about how the reserve troops didn't like them, wile SF units that trained to operate with them thought they were great.

The only armies in WWII in which you wouldn't see (m)any horses were the British and US. All other European armies relied extensively on horses as did the Red Army. Mainly as transport and for towing heavy weapons but also they had some combat cavalry units (essentially mounted infantry), sometimes mixed with motorized elements as so-called "light troops".

The German Army went into the USSR in 1941 with about 500,000 motorvehicles and 600,000 - 750,000 horses. I dont know how many horses the Soviets used, but looking at the TO&E of a 1942 Rifle Division, you will find the divisions 120 motorvehicles being in the company of nearly 1700 horses.

So seen from any other perspective than the anglo-american one - WWII was a very much a horses war

Claus B

I can see where you would need officers on foot to protect the horses. A sufficiently ruthless rioter will try to hamstring or gut the horses. This doesn't mean horses aren't valuable, but there are weak points, like tank/infantry co-operation.

Horses can be much simpler to stop than that. They won't advance if they think there is a solid wall in front of them. Simply holding a flag in front of their field of vision suffices to halt them.

Unless and until the horse decides to jump the barrier, that is.

The main vulnerability of horses comes when they get spooked. Objects that appear solid, in their paths, can indeed spook them. But horses sometimes shy, and sometimes proceed more aggresively, under those circumstances. I know. I watched a spooked horse jump an obstical once and land on my best friend. Not a very happy result. I, for one, would NOT want to hold a flag in front of a horse and assume it will shy away.

From my understanding, there are multiple values to horses in police service.

- The horse-mounted officer is notably higher up, giving him a great advantage in observing within a crowd (riot or protest, or even just a crowded event).

- That same height advantage is also a great advantage when weilding a baton. A mounted officer can use a much longer baton to good effect than his foot-bound associate.

- People are intimidated by 1,000lb + beasts. And well they should be. Getting hit by a horse's chest can be a crippling or lethal blow if he's moving fast enough. Getting trampled or kicked by a standing horse's hooves can be also be a crippling or lethal attack. Police seldom use their horses as weapons, at least in the US, but people are still intimidated by them.

- Horses have minds of their own. That can be a mixed blessing, but it can be a blessing. An officer can do other tasks in additon to "driving" while on a well-trained mount, like drawing and using his weapon while the horse continues to provide controlled mobility. That's hard to achieve on a motorcycle.

If the intent of the crowd is protest and low-level trouble-making up to and including various forms of hooliganism, and the intent of the police is to discourage that, horses are a great benefit. If the intent of the crowd (or some few members within the crowd) is violence up to the levels of deadly force, and the police are not yet intent on returning that lethal force or at least want to contain the return of force to selected individuals, horses are probably disadvantageous. If the police ever decide that they need to disburse a crowd quickly, by violent means as needed but hopefully not by gunning everyone down, horses again become quite useful.

Or so it seems to me.

-Mark 1

The Guard Hussar Regiment here still has a mounted squadron for ceremonial duties, and just the sound of a great number of horseshoes on a paved road is intimidating. I can clearly see why cavalry was/is so suited for clearing a street or square.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

So what breeds are best for military and police use?

Many US big-city police agencies retain horse-mounted officers, and use them primarily in crowd control.

There are few tools in the police arsenal that are as inimidating PRIOR to the application of violence. People who are around horse-mounted officers are simply less likely to cause trouble.

The horses intimidate the hooligans, yet at the same time enchant the kiddies. So mounted police are also good PR.

Usually. But not always, because in the end, even if enchanting they are also dangerous. Make no mistake about it, a horse is a big and dangerous animal -- as the good people of San Francisco discovered in the last two weeks. A police horse on crowd-control duty got spooked, bolted (ran off), and killed an innocent by-stander (an elderly gentleman in the crowd) just by barging into him chest-first.

A 1,000+ pound beastie moving at 25MPH produces a LOT of momentum.

-Mark 1

I believe that most US police agencies prefer the American Quarter Horse as their mounts. Some have also looked into non-competitive Thoroughbreds.

It seems tall is the most important attribute for police work. Calm is second. Tall and calm, and a smooth walker might be the optimum combination.

(But my information is all Nth-hand, just from talking to horse-enthusiasts and local stable wranglers. No direct experience, nor even any discussions with actual mounted officers.)

-Mark 1

Quick question:

Any equestrians here? How hard is it to train a horse to be aggressive? I remember from an essay by Montaign in the 16th century that some knights trained their horses to bite and kick. I presume having a horse prone to go berserk has its liabilities but better than one that gets scared easy.

I would not say I qualify as a genuine equestrian, as I do not own horses, have never owned horses, and don't work with horses on a daily basis. But I've been riding horses on-and-off for some 40+ years, and have been trained to ride and care for them to at least a minimal extent.

It is not very hard at all to train a horse to be aggressive. In fact it is often far more difficult to train them to NOT be aggressive. But it depends a great deal on the horse.

Very seldom does one see stallions (adult males) ridden by anyone of less than advanced riding skills. Most "riding" horses are either mares (females) or geldings (males castrated before adulthood). As with most herding ruminants, the adult males can be very aggressive. They are quite naturally a handful. Not quite as bad as a bull or buffalo, but still aggressive.

Much of the natural aggression is bred down, and the remaining aggression is usually trained down. But it still lies close below the surface. Usually the horse will learn through its training what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior. They are reasonably intelligent creatures (less so than a dog, but well above a cow or deer). Many are clever enough to figure out how to skirt around the rules just a bit, and I have experienced some moves by horses that were surprisingly aggressive, while not being overtly hostile. The males often try games to assert their dominance/control -- like trying to walk a rider off their backs by passing under low branches or rubbing against fence posts.

Even if well trained and controlled, when you get the horse excited its natural aggressiveness may well rise up. And horses are excitable creatures. That is one reason I speak in terms of "spooking" a horse, rather than "scaring" a horse. Sometimes you go "boo" and the horse will spook, and run away. Sometimes you go "boo" and the horse will spook, and kick you into the next timezone, or trample you into mush.

They like to run, and the stallions like to compete and to win. This is one reason that a cavalry charge is/was hard to stop once it got started. You could keep the horses in line while you walked them, or while you trotted them, or even while you cantered them. But the moment you got them gallopping -- the moment you "gave them their lead", it was almost impossible to reign them in. From that moment on they wanted the charge as much as the riders. You might be able to direct them, but you could not run for a bit, then trot for a bit. Once running, they were all-in on the game.

The key to training the next level of aggression seems to have been experience. You will see in the writings of the age of horse soldiers the premium that was put on the "old warhorse". A horse that had been in battle was expected to know what it meant to charge, and to know what to expect once in the thick of things, and to participate in the attack as much as the rider did. As far as I understand it, the process of training a warhorse was really a matter of selecting an aggressive stallion to start with, working to teach when he was under control vs. when he had his lead, and then giving him some experience in combat.

-Mark 1

This is a rather interesting article on the use of mules in the Pakistani army.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4354440.stm