Forums at The Military Horse

Originally posted by roy elderkin
Pat

Alhough not fully conversant, with the Ft Riley seat, I have looked up the photos on another thread. I t would appear that the two types of seat Grey's and Ft Riley are not dissimilar, although the strait back of the officer would be difficult to maintaine whilst on opps, but would repectfully sugest that it is a photo pose. But deisregarding this, the leg length, depth of seat and position of rider is about perfect for the type of seat we tried to produce. Not gripping with knees, a loose but balnced seat sitting in the centre of the saddle, horse well up to the bit, the horse well basculed, the rider at ease with his saddle and horse. The lower leg slightly away from the horses body, flat thighs, and stirrup iron just below the ankle bone, to administer the aid the foot is turned slightly in, bringing the heel and lower leg into contact ,not jabbing but squeezing ,the heel lifted slightly to press home the aid. And also to lift the the horse into the bascule, horses carry a rider better with a rounded back than a flat one. All this could be achieved on the longe, where corrections can be made and rectified. We did not all escape this all instructors were required to spend one hour, per month on the longe just in case we got into bad habits.

Roy, thank you very much. It's extremely interesting to read of the seat employed, and the lessons learned on riding, in this rigorous field application. I may separate this quote out under a thread entitled "Rhodesian Military Seat", to compliment the threads on the US Military Seat, British Seat, etc., which are also active.

I know that up know I have spent some time in discussing the rider, but I would like to introduce another aspect of Grey's training that of the horse. We introduced into the training TPR monitoring , that is temp,pulse and resperation, this form of science was invented by a Prof Bobilov of the Russian State University, vetinary sciences to measure horses in condition and exercise. When we first recieved horses their TPR readings were taken and recorded, and were taken at intervals throughout work, from these readings we could see if horses were getting sufficiant exercise, to bring them up to condition for opps. Depending on the exercise and condition, that animals were used, their TPR readings should come down to the normal as quickly as possible, the quicker they came down the fitter the horse was becoming, the slower it was, either the horse required more work or there was some other problem ie digestive, teeth had sharp edges and was not eating properly, or sickness, equine billary caused by ticks, african horse sickness, tsete fly bites prevalant along the Mozambique border for which there is no cure. Or in some case just pure bad horse management, by the rider, that could be rectified, he either sorted himself out or he was gone.
All horses either returning to barracks, or base camps were fully inspected by the Vets, only they could allow a horse to contue with opps, or they ordered horses to be back loaded to the barracks, where we had a complete vetinary setup, including opperating tables. We only lost a couple of horses in actual combat, in whole time that we were opperational, although we had some wounded they were patched up and returned to duty without any ill effects, as was related in another thread there were more vets than medics, a fully trained horse was worth its weight in gold.

I'm glad you addressed this as well. This illuminates to a further degree the attention given field horse rations, which is discussed earlier in the thread. It's remarkable how veterinary science came into play to the degree it did here, at a point at which it was quite advanced. It's very interesting to see the degree to which attention was paid to this.

Pat

Pat

I have a question for either yourself or other members of the forum . I have noticed recently that in news reports comeing from your part of the world, the question of border patrols and illegal immigrants crossing over. It rather reminds me of when Grey's was first opperational on the Muckabura Fence Mozambique border, when we were trying to stop incursions from there, with the arrival and border patrols, incursions almost ceased to happen.
I may be entering an area which does not concern me, but I would have thought that with the expertise and wealth of horsemanship that your country has, that why do you not form a mounted patrol system to carry out this type of border patrolling.
Perhaps raise a new American Mounted Infantry Unit, or mounted police unit.
If I am out of line, then I appologise.

Roy

Originally posted by roy elderkin
Pat

I have a question for either yourself or other members of the forum . I have noticed recently that in news reports comeing from your part of the world, the question of border patrols and illegal immigrants crossing over. It rather reminds me of when Grey's was first opperational on the Muckabura Fence Mozambique border, when we were trying to stop incursions from there, with the arrival and border patrols, incursions almost ceased to happen.
I may be entering an area which does not concern me, but I would have thought that with the expertise and wealth of horsemanship that your country has, that why do you not form a mounted patrol system to carry out this type of border patrolling.
Perhaps raise a new American Mounted Infantry Unit, or mounted police unit.
If I am out of line, then I appologise.

Roy

The Texas State Guard (not the Texas National Guard) has a new mounted PM unit. Ron Smith is part of it. He said the Possibly could patrol the border, but it's just a possibility. I imagine the big obstacle is political, the US has a strict separation of military and police functions, but since the National Guard can be employed in this fashion by state governors, the possibility is open.

What is used a lot is tactical tracking, or man tracking. The Border Patrol seems to be the worlds number one user of this specialized skill. Tactical Tracking Operations School Inc. trains lots of police/military people in the US. Their biggest customers do border patrol and fugitive capture work. The school was founded by a Rhodesian, former Selous Scout David Scott-Donelan, of the original Combat Tracking Unit (who also worked for South Africans in modern day Namibia).
Link
http://members.aol.com/mantrack/index.htm

Their PDF newslwtter covers border mantraking in the US

Speaking of tracking, I understand the Grey's Scouts also did this. The skill was originated with the help of game wardens that detected terrorists, so if Zimbabwe now uses mounted infantry to combat poachers (probably illegal hunters armed with very powerful big game guns or AKs or both) the mantraking tradition has come full circle.

I also suppose Baden Powell and his scouts (the ones used in war against afgans pathans) must be another influence, as Powell also fought in South Africa and Rhodesia (in Matabeland). Incidentally, Powell disliked Rodes a lot. Found him similar to Prempe!

Roy:

You are not at all out of line. Similar things have been suggested. The problem is, it makes too much sense,and the issue is now all about politics, a looking-glass world where little makes sense.

J

George

As usual you are spot on

Roy

Originally posted by roy elderkin
George

As usual you are spot on

Roy

Thanks, but as I covered some ground, exactly what am I right on, Baden Powell, Grey's Scouts using man tracking skills?

George

Both

Roy

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan
Roy:

You are not at all out of line. Similar things have been suggested. The
problem is, it makes too much sense,and the issue is now all about
politics, a looking-glass world where little makes sense.

J

Roy,

I concur with Joe. Your question is not out of line. Your suggestion, moreover, makes sense. And Joe, is correct, the problem is largely political, rather than tactical, or practical.

There's been some mention of patrolling the border, and on border security, before. It is a very hot issue right now, and frankly actually is being taken as a serious issue in the national light for the first time in many years.

The US border with Mexico can be fairly effectively patrolled, and has been in the past. It can't be sealed, but it can be much more patrolled and controlled than it now is. And it has been patrolled effectively, from time to time, since at least the start of the Mexican Revolution, when the US really began to take the border with Mexico seriously for the first time.

Horse mounted patrols actually were very common at one time. At first it was by the U.S. Army. The Army had cavalry units stationed along the border probably as early as the conclusion of the Mexican War, and stretching up until WWII. They were there as the border was volatile, but their duties extended beyond merely guarding against potential incursions by the Mexican Army, and amounted to a quasi police role in some ways (a role it had throughout much of the West, at one time).

For awhile border patrols were conducted by the U.S. Scouts, a branch fo the US Army made up of American Indians, after all of the US Cavalry units had been committed to WWII. At this time the Border Patrol already existed, but the Army continued to have a role. Here we would see two analogies to Roy's experience, in that both somewhat resemble things which occurred in southern Africa, ie., use of th Army, and use of indigenous people with native skills applicable to the job.

At some point in the 20th Century the task eventually became the role of the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol had a lot of mounted patrols originally. It still has some. It's been very well demonstrated that mounted patrols are very effective along the border. In part I'd theorize the decline in mounted patrols on the Border had less to do with their effectiveness than the widespread perception in the motorized era that everything has to be done by vehicle. In truth, it is probably the case that the border can be more effectively patrolled by horse than by car, and, while it's difficult to tell what is going on, it seems this might be increasing somewhat. At the same time, it appears that there will be increased patrolling by high tech aircraft, perhaps drones. So the border may once again see the combination of one of the oldest patrol methods with the newest.

The use of the military would be somewhat problematic, but would be less so than in other roles. Immigration fits into an odd legal category in that it is not regarded as the enforcement of domestic legislation, but rather fits into another category. Indeed, it has been used to some degree, and the use of the USMC resulted in a shooting tragedy a little over a decade ago that still causes some concerns. It would be a resumption of an old role, but I suppose the question there is whether it should be resumed, or the Border Patrol made more effective.

This takes all of us to the part of the discussion that is controversial, indeed so much so that the topic is, or at least has been, one of those that many people shy away from talking about at all. The part of this that becomes controversial is this. Quite truthfully some sections of the government, to include influential portions of both political parties, do not want the border controlled, while other portions of both parties do. This would be regarded as unimaginable in most countries, but it is actually part of the debate, but only barely acknowledged, here.

Some parts of the left wing of the Democratic Party essentially believe in an open border, with no controls. Their thought is that this is more humane. Also, it has been quietly assumed by the Democratic party that the principal ethnic group involved, ie., the Mexican immigrant, illegal or legal, is a Democratic voter.

At the same time, however, some sections of traditional Democratic bases are not at all of this view. Environmentally inclined groups have been worried for years about the population increase which immigration is part of. Now that illegal immigration effects every section of the country, tolerance for it has lowered dramatically. Other minority groups that traditionally vote Democratic tend to more concerned than other sections of the populace about all types of immigration, as they feel their entry level jobs are directly impacted. Finally, the assumptions about Mexican American voters has not been borne out, as Mexican American voters are generally opposed to illegal immigration, and have been voting for the Republicans in increasing numbers, as they are generally social conservatives.

Some sections of the Republican party silently support illegal immigration, in the believe that illegal immigrants are necessary to keep the American economy rolling. Indeed, as opposition to the lack of border controls has incrased considerably in recent years, this section of the GOP has been more open in its view that the country should take in illegal immigrants for this reason. Up to now they've more or less silently opposed border controls based on this economic assumption. And also, there was a feeling that to argue to control the border would anger the Mexican American voter.

Other sections of the GOP point out that the large uncontrolled immigration is very disruptive, and is frankly encouraging crime. In that, they are certainly correct, as the very fluid border has encouraged the development of criminal organizations controlled in Mexico, but operating widely in the American West. The Methamphetamine trade in the West is dominated by Mexican criminal gangs, and is an enormous regional problem.

Without delving into the overall debate, it has become clear that a large majority of the American public, to include a large majority of Mexican Americans which are very much in favor of a controlled border, and this has just recently become very much an open debate. The problem is not being addressed currently, but the fact it is now a topic which can be openly discussed suggests that it is one that might seem some attention in the foreseeable future.

If it does, that leaves the question of whether increased horse patrolling would occur. It might. If it does, it would probably be accompanied by increased patrolling of all types, to include airborne patrolling.



Pat

Pat

Thank you very much for that insight, we saw over twenty years ago that incursions dont always bring in illigal immigrants, very often it brings in the ter in another disguise, who can slip into an ethnic background and not be noticed, until its to late.

Roy

Originally posted by roy elderkin
Pat

Thank you very much for that insight, we saw over twenty years ago that incursions dont always bring in illigal immigrants, very often it brings in the ter in another disguise, who can slip into an ethnic background and not be noticed, until its to late.

Roy

Indeed, part of the recent raise in the level of concern over this is that its difficult to believe that we're effectively protecting the country against terrorism, when it is quite obvious that we do not have control over the border. Ironically, much of the early post September 11th attention to border control was directed northwards, towards the Canadian border, which is the least of the problem. There are, and always have been, some illegal entries which come through Canada first, but it is also true, of course, that Canada receives a lot of illegal entries from the US. Anyhow, the attention directed northwards was likely in part just because it is so much easier to address.

As time has gone on the various combination of factors which has drawn attention to this problem is finally starting to cause it to be regarded as a serious issue. And that, in turn, has caused people to realize that it isn't really a racial or ethnic debate, as some used to assert, as support, or opposition, to any one plan cuts across all etnicities and political spectrums. What cannot be doubted, however, is that any failure to address the problem does encourage an element which has no desire to immigrate, legally or illegally, but rather simply is taking advantage of an open border for criminal purposes.

Pat

Friends:

This is a sensitive topic that is usually put by the demagogues into the category of racism. That is nonsense. There is nothing racist about border security. Americans of Latin heritage support secure borders as much as any other Americans. The best example was when the El Paso border was sealed to illegals. Crime in El Paso declined by almost 90%. The citizens of El Paso are strong supporters of the measure -- and they are overwhelmingly Latino of Mexican origin, and have relatives on both sides of the border.

J

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan
Friends:

This is a sensitive topic that is usually put by the demagogues into the category of racism. That is nonsense. There is nothing racist about border security. Americans of Latin heritage support secure borders as much as any other Americans. The best example was when the El Paso border was sealed to illegals. Crime in El Paso declined by almost 90%. The citizens of El Paso are strong supporters of the measure -- and they are overwhelmingly Latino of Mexican origin, and have relatives on both sides of the border.

J

That's quite correct. Indeed the tendency for people to characterize this issue in racial terms has kept it, in part, from being addressed to the detriment, quite often, of the very group people claim to be championing.

When it is looked at, by and large, Mexican Americans, both recent arrivals and those who have had families in the country for generations, tend to largely have the same views as everyone else, and tend to resent the way that people assume what they are in favor of. Not everyone thinks the same thing, of course, which is true of every group. Indeed, in the last election a Hispanic candidate in southern Colorado bitterly noted how the national media did that, noting that his own views on a variety of topics were not in keeping with what the reported views are, and that this held true for his largely Hispanic constituency. Very often those who claim to know what a groups views are turn out to not really be interested in them, and have an agenda of their own. In this case the demagoguery has ill served everyone.

And to note, although it rarely is, the problem of illegal entry into the US is hardly limited to Mexico, although Mexico's internal problems creates a huge problem in this regards to both countries, and most particularly for poor Mexicans. While it is likely no longer the case, at least up until the mid 1980s the second largest group of illegal immigrants was from a European country, which had negative effects for both countries as well.

Pat

Pat

oops loks like I have opened pndoraas box

Roy

Roy-all,
The Texas State Guard (TXSG) disbanded our mounted detail earlier this year. Development & training of Detachments dedicated to Critical Asset protection took priority. The Texas-Mexican border was and is a topic of much discussion within the TXSG and political factions of all interests.

There is no doubt that Horse patrols are more effective than vehicular mounted troops, but far too many higher ups have no understanding of that.In the minds of Army brass you can train a troop more readily to operate a HUMV than to ride and work from a horse. To some extent that is true, but the US Army successfully trained thousands upon thousands of city slickers into some of the best Cavalrymen in the world. Not to mention it requires four men to maintain a HUMV, whereas a horse only requires one. For the price of 1 HUMV an entire Mounted Platoon could be set up. But this is the age of mechanized everything when it comes to soldiering.

There has been an increase in "Other Than Mexican" (OTM) crossings into Texas & New Mexico noted by INS-BP. Many are Middle Eastern males between 18&30 yrs of age. There is also a marked increase in crime in Texas cities along the border as well as ranch locations seeing an increase in illegal activity. This is a matter which gets whitewashed w/racial overtones when there is nothing more than pure security concerns. The US-Canadian border has seen more "insurgent" type persons caught than the Southern US Border, but it does not diminish the seriousness of what we are dealing with in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona & California. Texas and Arizona seem to bear the brunt of the hardcore illegal activity.

The Mexican Consulat offices all along the US-Mexican Border offer survival tips and other "encouragement tips" to Illegal immigrants from Mexico openly.

The Border Patrol has been using mounted agents for some time with good success, and they are increasing the amount of mounted agents slowly. Other agencies are active as well but in smaller numbers. What is not brought up is the number of municipal Police Depts and Sheriff's Dept.'s that are dealing with this problem.

They are using Tactical teams and other specialized personell to the limit. It is taxing their depts manpower & budgets severely.

Texas is the only Southern State that has a State Defence Force that has trained troops in numbers sufficient to make an impact. Not to mention TXSG troops are one of the few armed State Defence Force in the country. While we are parallel to the TXARNG/TXANG, we do not have the funding that NG troops have.

The biggest factor delaying the use of any group/unit/agency from being deployed onto the Border is Politics and Turf wars within the varous agencies and with Party politics as well.

"In my personal opinion", it will take the unfortunate act of terrorism or mass murder in one of the US-Mexican Border states to get anything done. America is reactive, not proactive.

Regards,
Ron Smith

Actually, Roy, it may be a pandora's box, but don't worry, you didn't open it. borfer security is one of the most debated toics in the country right now.

Joe

Ron

I have to commiserate wih you, and wish you luck with your endevours. It seems to me that I have heard this debate before, from army brass. W

I am very sorry to hear your mounted detail was disbanded, Ron. It is a sad waste of a valuable asset.

I belive Chile mantains mounted units can be explained partially because lots of officers learned to ride and wish to mantain the mounted tradition. When General Isurieta Caffarena (from the cavalry) was commander in chief, there was a rebirth of the horse infraestructure: the army whon ecuestrian championships, the military school built an ecuestrian center, the ceremonial artillery battery was formed. It's all a problem of connections with the top brass, I'm afraid.

Ron

Grey's had this same obsticle, army beleiving that horses were a thing of the past until vehicles bogged down and someone turned the taps off at the fuel pumps. Nothing changes, mounted units used in this type of format are more cost effective than a HUMV's. As for training I am sure that like Grey's in its early days, there are sufficiant staff throughout the USA who can ride a horse, and no doubt horses. It does not take a rocket scientist to find them and put them to good use, we did and you are alot bigger than we were also I wish I had the USArmy's budget when we set up the unit. A man in a vehicle cannot track, or see from the same vantage point that a mounted man can, and cannot act as quickly or be able traverse terain which a horse can, thats why engineers used the units pack animals to move wire and post, to an area where vehicles could not go. The other advantage of a horseman, is the intimidating factor, even modern man still has respect for a mounted soldier or policeman, that is why during the war years ters moved out of an area we moved into rather than engage us. And as you say one man only requires one horse, I do hope that you are not subjected to an act that brings things to a head, I have had that experience and would not wish it on you.

Roy

Originally posted by roy elderkin
Ron

Grey's had this same obsticle, army beleiving that horses were a thing of the past until vehicles bogged down and someone turned the taps off at the fuel pumps. Nothing changes, mounted units used in this type of format are more cost effective than a HUMV's. As for training I am sure that like Grey's in its early days, there are sufficiant staff throughout the USA who can ride a horse, and no doubt horses. It does not take a rocket scientist to find them and put them to good use, we did and you are alot bigger than we were also I wish I had the USArmy's budget when we set up the unit. A man in a vehicle cannot track, or see from the same vantage point that a mounted man can, and cannot act as quickly or be able traverse terain which a horse can, thats why engineers used the units pack animals to move wire and post, to an area where vehicles could not go. The other advantage of a horseman, is the intimidating factor, even modern man still has respect for a mounted soldier or policeman, that is why during the war years ters moved out of an area we moved into rather than engage us. And as you say one man only requires one horse, I do hope that you are not subjected to an act that brings things to a head, I have had that experience and would not wish it on you.

Roy

I'd additionally note that horses, while slower, are also much more mobile over a lot of terrain than any other option. Unfortunately, a person almost has to be a horseman to realize that. Maybe only a man on foot can traverse ground of equal roughness, but a man on foot is really slow.

People are so inclined towards motorized things that getting an appreciation of how limited they are can be difficult. From time to time, for example, I'll hear somebody mention "four wheelers" or some other ATV, in an attempt to favorably compare them to horses. Motorcycles use to be frequently mentioned the same way. Invariably the person who mentions this has no experience with horses, or is even afraid of them. So they really do not know enough to make the comparison. This is not to say the four wheeler, etc., do not have high mobility, they do. But they have less mobility than a horse, as well as a lower field of visability, and a loud noise signature.

So the horse does indeed retain a real role in certain types of patrolling work. The border is very dangerous, to be sure, but the patrolling work there is of a much different nature than in Iraq, or some such place, and the horse would likely work out very well. As Ron notes, some use is ongoing, but likely more could be done. They will not supplant the truck, quite obviously, but they could work in greater concert with them, and with the increased use of aircraft and electronic surveillance, all of which will be coming on in greater degrees.

Pat

To add to this, while it strays away from the main thread, as I've mentioned here from time to time, it strikes me that horses are probably underutilized in the rural policing role here. I don't know anything about urban conditions, but there's various types of rural policing where horse would still be a good option.

There is some use of them. The Park Service uses a mounted Ranger in the NW part of the State. Some Game Wardens use them. The Wind River Game Warden (an employee of the Reservation) is required to know how to ride. But probably more could be done.

Pat