Page 1 of 2

Limitations Part 1: Horses

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:02 pm
by Pat Holscher
This is a topic we've discussed before. I think the first person to bring it up was Joe Sullivan, when he brought up the topic of "broken down" horses, was back on the old, old, forum. Still it's a topic worth visiting again, and perhaps in a slightly different context.

That is, what was the practical physical limitations of the average military mount?

And to what extent was this limiting on mounted arms?

This appears to be a topic that's wholly ignored in popular works. Movies are the worst. If you view the typical cavalry movie, all cavalrymen are mounted on fresh horses all the time, irrespective of how long they've been in the field. Off hand, I can't think of any cavalry film where the horses break down. To give one example, of a film I like, take for instance Major Dundee. U.S. troops cross into Mexico in October and go on a months long campaign, but the horses never break down.

Many written works, and even historical works, aren't much better. Occasionally there will be mention of horses being tired, but no real discussion of what that meant. Some works, however, do discuss it. Anglesey's texts on the British cavalry do, and Utley does in his works on the frontier cavalry.

Many who have been on extended rides for one reason or another can give examples of this. If a person has to ride the same horse day after day, the horse starts wearing down fairly quickly. If the rides are long every day, or otherwise difficult, this can be quite rapid. After a few days, the horse can still be ridden, but getting the horse to perform is quite difficult.

I'd be curious to see what the limitations of horse use in the field actually was. How long could a march be? Some units went on very long ones, to be sure, but what sort of horse attrition was experienced. For those of you who have experience with hard horse use, what have you found? How does feed and nutrition impact this?

Pat

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:05 am
by selewis
This is a bit tangential, dealing with how to get the most out of your horse rather than what that limit might be (it all depends).

Dismounting and walking have been mentioned in the rider section and belong over here as well.Beyond that I believe that nothing needlessly wastes the horse more than sloppy riding.

In this regard a lot of attention is paid to the riders position fore and aft and anyone who is adept at riding on the irons can be justly proud of that skill; but often little attention is given to one's balance from side to side, deviations of which are the most fatiguing for the horse. Every deviation from the line of travel and the riders transverse equilibrium along that line means extra work for the horse. This isn't always fully appreciated by the rider because his base of support is fairly broad and stable in that plane, but it is the most unstable one for the horse. Riding behind someone who is loose in the tack you can better observe the effects on the horse. Even standing mounted the horses muscles can be seen performing a needless balancing act. It may not seem like much effort for such a big animal, but neither is it complete relaxation. I suspect that this is the main reason that it's so good to dismount whenever you can, if only for a minute or two. I can think of a handful of other things that I believe can help to save the horse but none so much as riding well.

Sandy

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:18 am
by selewis
More to the exact subject of this thread, I would like to have, or have a look at, the series of lectures that were given at Aldershot in the 1890's by Maj. F. Smith, Fleming, M. Horace Hayes, et al. I've seen them referred to in other's works but haven't been lucky enough to obtain a copy. I believe they address this topic. Has anyone had the opportunity to read them?

Sandy

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:47 am
by roy elderkin
Sandy

Whilst I agree that the riding skill is of importance, it is only part of the whole. It has been experienced that prolonged operational patrols, over time produces a regression in the riders ability. The human frame can only take so much, before problems start to occur, and same applys to the horse. And the problem is compounded, where inadequate rest periods are required in war like operations.
The limitations of horses in the field are often overlooked, but they can be a logistical problem, and sometimes not easly overcome, and in other cases tactical deployment has to be abandoned, and other areas searched for to deploy.

As far as horses are concerned, they cannot operate for long periods of time without fresh water, and feed, so the range of their deployment is limited. This does not make them ineffective, but creates a logistical string that could get to long.

They are also prone to internal and external predidisposition's which will effect their life span. Poor water and feed being one of them, and the breakdown of legs and knees being the other, whilst poor shoeing and foot care will also take its toll. Whilst every care is taken to ensure that weight is kept to the minimum, the horse still has to function as a war horse, and is required to take the weight of the rider plus his equipment. This in turn over a prolonged time, will result in the premature loss of the horses operational ability. Other factors often come into play, that of climate, heat cold rain and humidity each in turn will reduce the operational life of the horse.

It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:31 pm
by selewis
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />Sandy

Whilst I agree that the riding skill is of importance, it is only part of the whole. It has been experienced that prolonged operational patrols, over time produces a regression in the riders ability. The human frame can only take so much, before problems start to occur, and same applys to the horse.

It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks Roy. I've been reading your comments with great interest and regard for their source. These are matters that can't be ethically put to the test but by the exigencies created in a situation such as war, and as such are all the more valuable.

I wish I didn't have to leave just now but I'll have this on my mind for the day.

Sandy

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:31 pm
by roy elderkin
Sandy

Thank you for comments and interest.

Roy

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:48 am
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />

It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Extremely interesting figure.

As I've sometimes noted before, some of the non military, or ancient, military rides featured the use of multiple horses. The standard of seven horse to a man is common for 19th Century stock drives, and even in the 20th Century using more than one horse per man is the rule for hard stock work. The Mongols, to given an ancient example, also used more than one horse per man.

While I've never seen it cited this way, North American Indian tribes typically had horse herds that exceeded their population, and presumably Indians relied upon more than one horse per man also.

But this has never been the case for modern military operations, as far as I know. And a military horse is asked to do a lot.

Pat

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:56 am
by roy elderkin
Pat

Let me clarify what I said, when a Sqn was deployed it would have at least 105 horses, but only 96 horses would be operational at any one time, the balance were reserve a Sqn had on strengh a further 5% holding in reserve in the rear, from which they could call on.

Remember these horses were purchased that is the original ones, 1974-5 they would have been then 5 or 6 years old and would have 1 years service by 1975. They were extreemly hard worked animals, and to put it in perspective, war or the corridors of power do not have much sympathy, just as long as the job gets done, what ever the price.

Roy

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:00 am
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />Pat

Let me clarify what I said, when a Sqn was deployed it would have at least 105 horses, but only 96 horses would be operational at any one time, the balance were reserve a Sqn had on strengh a further 5% holding in reserve in the rear, from which they could call on.

Remember these horses were purchased that is the original ones, 1974-5 they would have been then 5 or 6 years old and would have 1 years service by 1975. They were extreemly hard worked animals, and to put it in perspective, war or the corridors of power do not have much sympathy, just as long as the job gets done, what ever the price.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's illuminating in and of itself. Most stock working horses around here are regarded as old once they are about 11 years old or so. I'm riding one now that is about 12. He can still do the job, and he's grown in a lot of ways over the years, but he's not as energetic as he was when he was five.

That's hardly old, in terms of a horse's useful utility, and I certainly don't want to suggest a person ought not to ride a horse in his teens.. But in terms of hard use, on a daily basis, maybe it is past the horse's prime. I suppose it is sort of like a 40 years old soldier (I can say that, being 44). There's lots of them, and they can more than do the job on a person by person basis, but if you were going to start a draft, they probably wouldn't be your first choice.

Pat

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:52 am
by selewis
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />
It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A day's reflection hasn't lessened the impact of this terrific number. I was thinking that under those conditions the underlying reasons for every tenet of good horsemanship quickly become apparent. Things that are overlooked or given short shrift in recreational riding, like saddle fit and good grooming, would assume great importance in extending the horse's usefulness; not to say that you would always be able to do the things for the horse that you would like, but that little things mean more and more at the extremes.

Sandy

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:10 am
by selewis
Roy;
Are these figures broken down by malady? You've mentioned the legs, what would you say was the leading cause of breakdown and gradual wastage?

Sandy

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:18 am
by Ron Smith
Pat,
A bit off of the subject but the Army is increasing the age limits for re-entry into the 40's.

The average age on my Team is in the mid forties and we won the CG's Challenge Cup this year. ( It wasn't easy though)

But most US men in their forties are far too out of shape to attempt military endeavors.

Ron

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:24 am
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ron Smith</i>
<br />Pat,
A bit off of the subject but the Army is increasing the age limits for re-entry into the 40's.

The average age on my Team is in the mid forties and we won the CG's Challenge Cup this year. ( It wasn't easy though)

But most US men in their forties are far too out of shape to attempt military endeavors.

Ron

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you can actually join the Army now, probably for the first time since perhaps prior to WWI, with no prior service up to about age 40 or so.

My point wasn't very clear, but you've picked up on it. I'm not maintaining that nobody could soldier at age 40. That wouldn't be true at all. And there's plenty of instances in the past where various armies even conscripted well up in to the 50s. I think even the US Army had a theoretical upper limit to conscription in WWII at about 42 or so. But, you'd get a lot more fit and agile folks in the 20s, than the 40s. And it'd be likely that a higher percentage of 20 year olds would endure the rigors of field life than 40 year olds, on a day to day basis. However, individual examples can vary enormously.



Pat

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:31 am
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by selewis</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />
It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A day's reflection hasn't lessened the impact of this terrific number. I was thinking that under those conditions the underlying reasons for every tenet of good horsemanship quickly become apparent. Things that are overlooked or given short shrift in recreational riding, like saddle fit and good grooming, would assume great importance in extending the horse's usefulness; not to say that you would always be able to do the things for the horse that you would like, but that little things mean more and more at the extremes.

Sandy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Quite true. This has been very illuminating!

Pat

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:05 am
by roy elderkin
Sandy

Something that springs to my mind, and I was not sure whether to post on Grey's or here, but as we are on the subject this is as good a place.

The Regt had a purpose built animal hospital, which was regarded as the best equiped horse and dog facility in Southern Africa. It was staffed by some the best Vets in the country, including those who worked on race horses. Indeed a number of civilian horses, were granted permission to be operated on there.

Every care was taken over our horses, their welfare was extreemly important to us, one has to remember that a fully trained operational horse was worth its weight in gold. Any negligence on the part of the soldier irrespective of their rank, could and did result in severe repercussions, including Courts Martial. Many soldiers rode the same horse operationaly for 5 years, but there comes a time when operations aside where do these horses go and who will take care of them, after it is all over you can only farm out so many.

I lost one horse through operations, and had to put two down because there was no one left to take care of them after I left the country. And this was the situation in the country, after war like operations had ceased.

You can only ensure that the usefulness and prolong the life the horse, by good animal management and care. Even if that animal is used to the extreem, rather than the norm, it should always be born in mind.
But like everything else, there are limitations in what can and cannot be done with horses, and there is only so much one can do to ensure that their usefulness is not cut short prematurely.

Roy

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:09 pm
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by selewis</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />
It was estimated that after the Rhodesian War, by 1982 at least 2 years after the war, that between 35 and 40% of the original horses of Grey's, would be unfit for further duties, and that if not replaced the remainder would be unfit after a further 5 years, and we are talking about an animal establishment of over 400 horses, that is 3 Sqn's and at that point the mounted infantry would not exist, unless of course this was disregarded and the horses ridden into the ground.

Roy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A day's reflection hasn't lessened the impact of this terrific number. I was thinking that under those conditions the underlying reasons for every tenet of good horsemanship quickly become apparent. Things that are overlooked or given short shrift in recreational riding, like saddle fit and good grooming, would assume great importance in extending the horse's usefulness; not to say that you would always be able to do the things for the horse that you would like, but that little things mean more and more at the extremes.

Sandy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just imagine how similar figures must have worked out for the large horse supported armies of the first half of the 20th Century. It really puts something like the German effort of WWII, and everyone's effort of WWI in to a new prospective.

Pat

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:18 pm
by Pat Holscher
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by roy elderkin</i>
<br />It was staffed by some the best Vets in the country, including those who worked on race horses. Indeed a number of civilian horses, were granted permission to be operated on there.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Roy, it's never occurred to me before, but were equestrian sports followed much in southern Africa?

Pat

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:49 am
by roy elderkin
Sandy

If you were to list area of breakdown, the first would be physical that is fair ware and tear, caused by the amount of use and mileage that horses would have to put in. Secondly equine billary [ tick fever], liver fluke poor quality water or contaminated water, African horse sickness, snares put down by poachers, tendonniatis, asotaria [monday morning sickness]. And actualy extreemly low on the list, damage caused in actual combat ie gunshot or shrapnell, it is suprising the number of horses that were patched up and returned to duty without any problems.

Pat
A lot of equestrian sports were followed in Southern Africa, especially amongst farmers, that is until the war was getting started, then it taled away a lot. It recovered slightly after the war, but not to the same extent. There were simply not enough people left in the country, to do it. South Africa is differant it is extreemly popular, and was unaffected by the war.

Roy

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:57 am
by selewis
'Useful horse'.
It dawned on me yesterday that the likely source of this term is the military designation. (I may be old, but I'm slow.)
I've always regarded this understated horseman's epithet as high praise for an animal but it acquires even deeper meaning and a profound distinction for me now.
Sandy

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:40 am
by CRB
There is some very interesting information of units in the field in Col. Tompkins book "Chasing Villa" He gives the amount and type of country traveled, the available feeds and the reasons the horses broke down. It seems the only horse that broke down were new to the unit and had not been conditioned. I have the book loaned out right now but I will post the information when I get it back.