Skip to comments.Leading The Charge: Twice As Many Horses As Tanks In British Army
Posted on 07/17/2015 5:14:01 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Amid ongoing changes to the British Army under the banner of austerity, the bemusing statistic of four legged firepower outweighing the heavy metal variety persists.
Recently, the Conservative Defence Minister Lord Astor admitted:
The Army currently has 485 horses, serving in the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, the Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery, the Household Division and at the Defence Animal Centre."
The last time horses were used in a combat role by the British Army was World War I, when a million were sent to the frontline and only about 62,000 survived.
During World War II, General Orde Wingate and his British Chindit raiders used horses and mules to carry supplies behind enemy lines in Burma.
Despite their historic sacrifice, the use of horses in modern military is mainly ceremonial, with the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery and Household Cavalry taking on most of the official roles.
Despite the tank being a key feature of the Army since World War I, with significant numbers sent to the former Yugoslavia during the Balkans War and the US-UK Iraq invasion in 2003, Lord Astor conceded:
The total number of Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks is 227.
The chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation countered: "The figures don't necessarily mean we have got too many horses, it's more likely the figures mean we don't have enough tanks.
Tory peer Lord Astor said as well as the 227 main battle tanks, another 141 Challenger variants are also in service.
How about suits of armor? Do they have many in stock?
At least they are environmentally friendly and flashy.
mounted drummers are animal cruelty
“At least they are environmentally friendly and flashy.”
Possibly more reliable and maneuverable in close quarters, also.
I preferred Jeremy Clarkson Range Rover going against the Challenger. Lots of steel and fuel.
There was that good natured jab about British rifled main gun being supposedly better than the smooth bore we Americans use.
No experience with Challenger but some seat time in an Abrams.
Why buy a battle tank when you can hire 10 National Health Service bureaucrats for the same money?
horses eat grass, thus can double as ‘lawn mowers’
In the Book of Revelation, it speaks about the armies who come up against Israel in the latter days, as riding horses. It also says how the blood will be up to the horse’s bridles during this war. I often wondered about this because of the military use of tanks, etc., but, now it makes sense.
Tanks and armored personnel carriers are the modern horses and chariots
Horses can make more horses... let’s see a tank do that.
The humans didn't fare much better.
After hell on Earth breaks out, there may not be fuel to run tanks, so it may well be horses.
The leftists believe their will never be another big war—do you really believe that? The UN prevents big wars? Hasn’t stopped the little ones yet. The EU can’t hold itself together—how can it stop Turkey or Russia. They are as ripe fruit to be plucked by an enemy with ruthless courage and barbarism.
The Europeans were telling themselves in the early 1900’s that there would never again be a major war on their continent.
I’m pretty sure that the SAS forces that were deployed to Afghanistan in the wake of 9-11 rode horses for mountain operations. Making the the last/most recent elements of the British Army to use horses in combat.
US Special Forces did the same.
(And, no, the Polish lancers did not attack German Tanks.)
#6 Tank vs Range Rover Challenge Part 2 - Top Gear - BBC
A favorite episode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.