Forums at The Military Horse

Why should the United States lag behind other great powers in the military use of animals? (Horse and Mule Association of America ... Booklet) By John K. Herr.

This book was written by the last Chief of Cavalry of the US Army and was published in 1941. I have to assume that it was an effort to argue for greater horse and mule use.

Has anyone read it?

Pat

Why Should the United States Lag Behind Other Great Powers in the Military Use of Animals? by Gen. Herr.

Transcribed by Couvi.

Thanks!

Pat

Pat:

I read it when Couvi was kind enough to e-mail me a copy.

It was interesting reading, and I enjoyed the photos, especially of the portees. The statistics are fascinating and eye-opening.

My overall impression was one of sadness at the irony of General Herr's position. Instead of seeing the glass as half full; in terms of a foreshadowing of America's industrial dominance and the ability to mechanize efficiently, he portrayed the glass as half empty, and assumed the other major paowers knew something we didn't in maintaining a reliance on horses.

He made some valis points, foreshadowing that the tank would be checked by efficient anti-tank weapons and air power, he is not convincing when he argues dispersal will protect cavalry from air attack.

General Herr's arguments for retaining horses for both cavalry and artillery failed to take in to account the nature of the impending war. His statement that America was "over-motorized", and to adjust by reconverting "at least half of our marching divisions" is remarkable.

His final words "the horse needs no favors. He asks only a square deal" reveal his desperation to save a way of life that was being rapidly slipping away.

Mt lasting impression is that this is a wonderful historical document, well worth reading, and I am indebted to Couvi for providing it for our perusal.



Regards,

John Ruf
Culpeper, Virginia

"God forbid that I should go to any Heaven in which there are no horses."
Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham 1852-1936

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Ruf</i>
<br />Pat:

I read it when Couvi was kind enough to e-mail me a copy.

It was interesting reading, and I enjoyed the photos, especially of the portees. The statistics are fascinating and eye-opening.

My overall impression was one of sadness at the irony of General Herr's position. Instead of seeing the glass as half full; in terms of a foreshadowing of America's industrial dominance and the ability to mechanize efficiently, he portrayed the glass as half empty, and assumed the other major paowers knew something we didn't in maintaining a reliance on horses.

He made some valis points, foreshadowing that the tank would be checked by efficient anti-tank weapons and air power, he is not convincing when he argues dispersal will protect cavalry from air attack.

General Herr's arguments for retaining horses for both cavalry and artillery failed to take in to account the nature of the impending war. His statement that America was "over-motorized", and to adjust by reconverting "at least half of our marching divisions" is remarkable.

His final words "the horse needs no favors. He asks only a square deal" reveal his desperation to save a way of life that was being rapidly slipping away.

Mt lasting impression is that this is a wonderful historical document, well worth reading, and I am indebted to Couvi for providing it for our perusal.



Regards,

John Ruf
Culpeper, Virginia

"God forbid that I should go to any Heaven in which there are no horses."
Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham 1852-1936
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Indeed. Herr was arguing for a past that had already gone by, rather than arguing for a future use of the horse that might have been, and somewhat was by default. He was a romantic at heart, and could not stand the thought of the passing of the horse, nor of the passing of the horse cavalry.

Philip once put up a letter from Patton to Herr that was quite heated in tone. Patton seemed angry that Herr hadn't fully embraced motorization, and that this had lead to the marginalization of the cavalry branch. Patton himself argued for a post war retention of horse cavalry, but he fully saw that mechanization had arrived, and the horse cavalry could no longer be what it was.

Pat