Comments on: Non-permissive even to motorcycles

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:19:05 +0000

Redan, I think the point is using the transportation method most fitted to the locality, not any sort of universal statement about horses vs. motorized vehicles. Rural Afghanistan has plenty of horses and all the human and other resources needed for their support. It lacks many of the things needed to support more mechanized modes of transport.

By: Wang Weilin

Wang Weilin — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:20:31 +0000

Why horses when a drone/jet/helo will do? I guess if you need boots on the ground for intel, ok, but if you want blow things up putting soldiers at risk makes no sense.

By: Redan

Redan — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 21:15:46 +0000

“Doesn’t need the logistical support of gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.”

Does need the logistical support of water, fodder, etc.

…and a farrier/blacksmith/veterinarian, and daily PMCS, for the animal and the tack.

By: Thales

Thales — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 20:32:45 +0000

“Why march with all gear to war when you can ride a horse.”

It’s not quite that simple — even in ancient times infantry could easily out-march cavalry if the destination was a week or more away.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:21:26 +0000

That reminds me:

The German army, contrary to the blitzkrieg legend, was not fully motorised and had only 120,000 vehicles, compared to the 300,000 of the French Army. The British also had an "enviable" contingent of motorised forces. Thus, "the image of the German 'Blitzkrieg' army is a figment of propaganda imagination". During the First World War the German army used 1.4 million horses for transport and in the Second World War used 2.7 million horses; only ten percent of the army was motorised in 1940.

By: Adar

Adar — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 15:27:59 +0000

Not a bad idea no matter what the terrain. Why march with all gear to war when you can ride a horse. Doesn’t need the logistical support of gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.