Can anyone tell me the last time the cavalry charge was used in warfare? (ie a time and a place and the outcome of that encounter)

I've heard this debate quite a few times, so sorry if it's cropped up here before, but every time I HAVE heard it there was never a satisfactory outcome.

The last one I'm aware of was in the 1939 German invasion of Poland - apparently desperate Polish troops charged German tanks (but I think this may have been denied by some Polish warfare buffs)

Anyway - I bet you guys can sort it out ;)

Originally posted by Rodgers
Can anyone tell me the last time the cavalry charge was used in warfare? (ie a time and a place and the outcome of that encounter)

I've heard this debate quite a few times, so sorry if it's cropped up here before, but every time I HAVE heard it there was never a satisfactory outcome.

The last one I'm aware of was in the 1939 German invasion of Poland - apparently desperate Polish troops charged German tanks (but I think this may have been denied by some Polish warfare buffs)

Anyway - I bet you guys can sort it out ;)

This is what I have heard in school. I don't know if there has been any cavalry charges since.

Originally posted by Rodgers
The last one I'm aware of was in the 1939 German invasion of Poland - apparently desperate Polish troops charged German tanks (but I think this may have been denied by some Polish warfare buffs)

Yes, this myth has recently turned out to be false. Apparently, the polish successfully charged against infantry, but quickly retreated when some German light armor showed up. War correspondents are known to have fabricated lots of stories throughout WW2, and this is one of those. But as an answer to your actual question, yes there was a cavalry charge. But definitely not the last. On the Russian front, horses were used in combat, but I don´t have at hand any facts of actual cavalry charges.

edit: What do you know. I immediately found a nice link. Seems the polich incident isn´t seen as a "real" cavalry charge, but more as a simple cavalry attack.

This source claims the "The last great cavalry charge in history" was the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade charging the Turkish defenses at Beersheba in 1917: http://www.bluestarbase.org/anzacs1.htm

Britain´s last cavalry charge was in 1898, with Churchill participtaing: http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/churchill.html

This site (http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html) claims the Italians made the last cavalry charge, in 1942. On the Russian front, as I already suspected in my last post.

CAVALRY CHARGE. The last Cavalry charge in history took place on August 23, 1942 at Izbushensky on the River Don. The Italian Savoia Cavalry Regiment, commanded by Colonel Bettoni, and consisting of 600 mounted Italian troops, charged against 2,000 Soviet troops who had opened a breach between the German 6th.Army and the Italian Army. The Italian Lancers destroyed two Soviet Infantry armoured vehicles before being forced to withdraw with slight losses, about thirty-two casualties.

Don´t be too surprised if I find something else. :D

Cool links :goodjob: The Australian one seems a bit jingoistic - wonder if it's 100% reliable? - but good story all the same.

Maybe I should have said this at the start but there may have been one in the post-war period - did El Salvador's guerillas use cavalry? - they are shown as doing so in Oliver Stone's film "Salvador" :confused:

EDIT - we posted simultaneously :D - keep searchin' :goodjob:

I´m back again! :D

This site (http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl6b.html#xtocid1228619) moves the date one year forward, to early 1943. This story, however, very much sounds like a made-up myth, so don´t take it as a fact. I´ll see if I can get some more info about it.

1943 - THE LAST CAVALRY CHARGE
When the German Panzer divisions crossed the Polish border in 1939, they confronted an adversary which symbolized the end of the mounted soldier - or so they thought. Pathetically, the Polish Cavalry attempted to stall the invasion by charging the German tanks on horseback. To say the least, the valiant Poles were quickly overrun. Four years later the cavalry had a final say. In the cold winter of 1943, on the steppes of the Ukraine, the German tanks were literally frozen in their tracks. Cossacks descended on the tanks, mounted on ponies which were descendants of the horses of the ancient Scythians, the first masters of cavalry.

The Cossacks swept over the frozen plain firing machine guns and throwing grenades into the German forces with deadly effect. The Cossacks fled on their swift horses before the astonished Germans had time to react.

This site (http://www.vfwpost875.com/HotSheet.html) claims the last American cavalry charge was during the fall of the Philippines in 1942, under a unit led by Edwin Price Ramsey.

This site (http://www.factcat.com/Archive/FC20010830.htm) again claims the last cavalry charge was in 1941:

The last cavalry charge happened in November 1941, when a division of Mongols charged a German infantry division near Moscow. Two thousand cavalrymen died, and not one German.

Still no past-WW2 links, though.

Ah well, thanks for tryin' :D

I think that cavalry was last used in a decicive battle in Palestine in 1918, by the Arab troops under the command of Sir Edmund Allenby.

OK, some clarification is definitely required here.

This myth of the "valiant Poles" charging tanks is a load of huey, but it is still widely reported in Western history books. The whole story is a fabricated piece of Nazi propaganda based loosely around an incident on the closing day of the Bzura River battles in September 1939 when withdrawing Polish horse cavalry found itself encircled by a Nazi light tank unit. They did what every military unit in that situation does, they fought their way out. Horses were faster and more maneuverable than tanks in 1939 so as soon as they broke out they ran, which is the sensible thing to do in that situation. They did not charge steel tanks with their lances; give us some credit. The Nazis used this incident as propaganda to illustrate how vastly superior Nazi tactics and equipment were, and how backward and hopelessly medieval (i.e., history) the Poles were. I may remind you that for as short as the Nazi invasion of Poland lasted, 35 days, it was still 5 days longer than the combined French, BEF, Dutch and Belgian forces lasted in 1940 with far greater advantages in numbers, equipment and terrain than the Poles had. :mad:

As for horse cavalry; the roads in 1940s Eastern Europe, especially as one traveled progressively eastward from Warsaw, deteriorated in quality to such an extent that tanks, trucks and heavy vehicles became useless, especially in the Spring and Autumn wet seasons. Throughout the entire war both the Nazis and Soviets maintained large horse cavalry divisions, mostly for transport and hunting partisans. Western Europe had wonderful and complex road networks that allowed motor vehicles virtual free reign in all seasons, but horses were still more effective for parts of the year in the East.

As for the last (horse) cavalry charge in history; it may still be happening. I'll bet that if you dug into the records on last year's American-led overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, you will find an example of a charge by horse-bound units. I know parts of Arabia and among the more remote Berbers of North Africa horses still dominate military culture, as they still do in many parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia.

This myth of the "valiant Poles" charging tanks is a load of huey, but it is still widely reported in Western history books.

Thanks, Vrylakas. As you no doubt saw in my first post in this thread, I already said the headlong charge against tanks is a myth. But thanks for giving some more insights. I posted a more detailed description of this event in a thread earlier, but can´t seem to find it. :o

As for horse cavalry; the roads in 1940s Eastern Europe, especially as one traveled progressively eastward from Warsaw, deteriorated in quality to such an extent that tanks, trucks and heavy vehicles became useless, especially in the Spring and Autumn wet seasons. Throughout the entire war both the Nazis and Soviets maintained large horse cavalry divisions, mostly for transport and hunting partisans. Western Europe had wonderful and complex road networks that allowed motor vehicles virtual free reign in all seasons, but horses were still more effective for parts of the year in the East.

Yes, the German army had (if I remember correctly) about 600.000 horses in the campaign against Soviet, and a few thousand tanks/trucks.

As for the last (horse) cavalry charge in history; it may still be happening. I'll bet that if you dug into the records on last year's American-led overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, you will find an example of a charge by horse-bound units. I know parts of Arabia and among the more remote Berbers of North Africa horses still dominate military culture, as they still do in many parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia.

I very much doubt that. Yes, horses are in widespread use in for example Afghanistan, but troops always dismount before engaging in battle. Maybe a small skirmish against unarmed civilians, but I have a very hard time believing anything like a concentrated cavalry charge has happened during the last 50 years. One or two men with AK:s would create a bloodbath on the attacking cavalrymen.

I wasn't too interested in small bands of horsemen or bandit types - more the kind of properly organised state military outfit.

Having said that does anyone know if the Mao's Communist guerillas in China ever used cavalry? It seems the sort of thing they MIGHT have done :confused:

Originally posted by napoleon526
I think that cavalry was last used in a decicive battle in Palestine in 1918, by the Arab troops under the command of Sir Edmund Allenby.

Yep, it was on the Plain of Meggido in Palestine - otherwise known as Armageddon!!

Actually, bought a book recently that analysed every battle fought at Meggido - apparently it is a crucial strategic place in that area so has been frequently fought over. Unfortunately the book was a present for someone else and I have yet to borrow it back :(

Originally posted by Rodgers
Having said that does anyone know if the Mao's Communist guerillas in China ever used cavalry? It seems the sort of thing they MIGHT have done :confused: No, North China had never been known for massive horse-breeding. Too much intensive river plains agriculture. South China is worse.

Thru out history, China's imperial rulers sought to control the North-west where the imperial stud farms were to be located. Dynasties which didn't control this vital region would tend to be militarily weak thru out their entire span (e.g. the Song dynasty). Due to lack of horses for the army. Very important considering China's worst enemies were mounted nomads fr the steppes to the north.

Mao's guerillas were almost entirely infantry. Until late in the civil war with the KMT (late 40s) when large numbers of KMT troops deserted (along with all their Japanese and American equipment), then only would they begin to field armor, artillery etc units.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
No, North China had never been known for massive horse-breeding. Too much intensive river plains agriculture. South China is worse.

And China´s UU is the Rider? :confused: Is Firaxis trying to forge history? :D

Last charge of cavalry using swords and lances.

anything else is just mounted infantry.

Last charge of cavalry using swords and lances.

anything else is just mounted infantry.

What if your infantry primarily uses swords and lances? Then they are all dismounted cavalry?

Cavalry fights on horseback, infantry fights on foot. Weaponry is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Thuloid


What if your infantry primarily uses swords and lances? Then they are all dismounted cavalry?

Cavalry fights on horseback, infantry fights on foot. Weaponry is irrelevant.

No Infantry has ever used lances - Pikemen use Pikes
(the weapons have differient balances)

A horse is a dog if you want to call it one.
The US still uses cavalry as a name for it's armoured units.
The point of cavalry is using the horse's momentum as a weapon
to impact a enemy formation and disorganize it.

So mounted units which attack from a distance, throwing javelins or shooting bows (or firearms) aren't cavalry?

A lance is simply another name for a spear, more often used for the weapon as employed by a horseman, but not necessarily so. Specifics may vary, but the point is the same (a long pointy stick).

The US uses cavalry as a name for reasons of tradition, not similarity of tactics. Modern tanks don't charge formations, they attack from great distances as mobile armored fire platforms.

Originally posted by Thuloid
So mounted units which attack from a distance, throwing javelins or shooting bows (or firearms) aren't cavalry?

A lance is simply another name for a spear, more often used for the weapon as employed by a horseman, but not necessarily so. Specifics may vary, but the point is the same (a long pointy stick).

The US uses cavalry as a name for reasons of tradition, not similarity of tactics. Modern tanks don't charge formations, they attack from great distances as mobile armored fire platforms.

The question is
"Last known cavalry charge" not last known use of horses for mobility in battle, which would be yesterday somewhere in the world.

A cavalry charge is using impact to disorganize the enemy formation.

Originally posted by Supernaut


Yep, it was on the Plain of Meggido in Palestine - otherwise known as Armageddon!!

Actually, bought a book recently that analysed every battle fought at Meggido - apparently it is a crucial strategic place in that area so has been frequently fought over. Unfortunately the book was a present for someone else and I have yet to borrow it back :(
King Josiah of Judea was killed in battle by the Egyptians at Meggido, and the Egyptians also fought the Hittites there several times. I don't know where the idea that armageddon will be fought there comes from (MEGGIDO -- arMAGEDDOn)

"I don't know where the idea that armageddon will be fought there comes from (MEGGIDO -- arMAGEDDOn)"

I think it was chosen because it was the sight of so many important battles in the past due to it's strategic position (I beleive it is sighted at the crossroads of several major trade routes). The name Armageddon is indeed a perversion of the actual name of the sight.

As for the point of this thread it was to see if anyone could tell me the date of the last known cavalry charge - ie a mounted unit (who were trained for this specific purpose - not horse transports or anything else using the name "cavalry") charging an enemy in the traditional cavalry style. I dont care what weapons the horses' riders were using.

The actual reference is in the Book of Revelations where Meggido will be the site of the final battle between good and evil. As Rodgers said, it was probably chosen because of its historic qualities as a decisive battleground. I think the city of Jericho was very near there as well, but could be wrong.

The last calvary charge was at Stalingrad when the russians sent everything they got to encircle the Nazis. They even used camels!

Just found this thread while combing through old territory. Rodgers, if you still inhabit this part of the world, Stone's "Salvador" accurately refers to an El Salvadorean cavalry unit to charge "all the way to Tegucigalpa" as the last cavalry charge in history, during the Soccer War in '69 or whenever the hell it was.

Originally posted by Thuloid
So mounted units which attack from a distance, throwing javelins or shooting bows (or firearms) aren't cavalry?



what he was tring to say was some mounted units did not fight on horseback, the charge of the lighthorsemen in 1918 caught the turks by suprise BECAUSE they charged, never in their history had they not dismounted once the reached the battle field and fought as infantry.

My father, Micheal V. Campbell was in the 26th U.S. Horse Cavalry outfit that was the last horse cavalry to ever see combat. They were assigned to detached service with a unit in the Philippine Army. which was 1941-42. The Japanese attacked about that time and whipped them out. Those who survived were captured by the Japanese around April 9, 1942 and that is when the Bataan Death March took place. My father was captured and was a true survivor. He passed on in December of 1996. He talked about his experiences although it was the hardest thing for him to do. He was a true HERO!! He was my hero....

Just found this thread while combing through old territory. Rodgers, if you still inhabit this part of the world, Stone's "Salvador" accurately refers to an El Salvadorean cavalry unit to charge "all the way to Tegucigalpa" as the last cavalry charge in history, during the Soccer War in '69 or whenever the hell it was.
Any war started over a soccer game is awesome enough. But when that war involves a cavlary charge... El Salvador just became my favourite country.

I may remind you that for as short as the Nazi invasion of Poland lasted, 35 days, it was still 5 days longer than the combined French, BEF, Dutch and Belgian forces lasted in 1940 with far greater advantages in numbers, equipment and terrain than the Poles had. :mad:

*sigh* On one hand, you want us to stop propagating the myth the Polish cavalry attacked German tanks with lances. Which I'd do eagerly as I know it to be completly false.

But on the other hand, you try to propagate the myth than Poland lasted longer than France...
The German attacks started the 10th of May 1940.
The armistice was signed the 22nd of June 1940. At that time, some French forces were still fighting, the cease-fire came into effect the 25th of June.

That's 45 days. 10 more than Poland.

It's not especially glorious in itself, but just get your fact right.

That's 45 days. 10 more than Poland.

Wow....I knew the French got their a$$es handed to them, but I never realized it happened that quickly. That's...pretty sad.

Wow....I knew the French got their a$$es handed to them, but I never realized it happened that quickly. That's...pretty sad.
No sadder than what happened to anyone else encountering the Wehrmacht on a battlefield around 1939-1940, Brits included.

Wow....I knew the French got their a$$es handed to them, but I never realized it happened that quickly. That's...pretty sad.

Hmm...let me guess- you're American?

No sadder than what happened to anyone else encountering the Wehrmacht on a battlefield around 1939-1940, Brits included.

And Russia... We may not have done as well as we could (God damn you Stalin) but we held our own and triumphed.

And Russia... We may not have done as well as we could (God damn you Stalin) but we held our own and triumphed.
Russia basically won because Zhukov was brilliant and Hitler was stupid. That, sheer numbers, and German unpreparedness for a prolonged campaign gave you a massive edge. "General Winter" gets a lot more credit than he deserves. Although Russia would likely have won in any event, barring extreme stupidity on it's part, or some actual intellect on the German side.

And Russia... We may not have done as well as we could (God damn you Stalin) but we held our own and triumphed.
Russia and the UK were geographically advantaged in ways the Poles and French weren't. The UK had the Channel to retreat behind, and Russia could trade land for time, to come back swinging eventually. Neither the Poles of the French fought perceptibly worse than the British or Soviet armies in the early part of the war, possibly better, they just paid a heavier price for not being able to stop the German armies.

No sadder than what happened to anyone else encountering the Wehrmacht on a battlefield around 1939-1940, Brits included.

The Brits did not have their full force there nor were they fighting for their own home soil. Noone else who encountered the Wehrmacht that early were much beyond a second or third rate power. France was a first rate power that had to have been expecting (or at least preparing for the possibility of) war for the last 4-5 years or so. That they didn't last significantly longer than lesser powers like Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Norway and others is pretty bad.

I've just been reading a few accounts of the French war effort and its pretty sad. Yeah they were outmanned, outgunned, and out-materialed...suffered from some strategic incompetence and lack of proper intelligence, but these deficits were compounded by the outright defeatist attitude of the leadership and all but absent morale of many of the defending troops, many of whom abandoned positions that they could of held due to rumor and fear.

The Germans themselves were stretched. Didn't have perfect intelligence. A battle plan that was not followed due to insubordinate commanders. If positions were held and counterattacks made, they could have been stalled. But these efforts never really came.

The Greeks made a better showing in the war and they had a mere fraction of what the French did militarily.

And yeah, the Russians could give land for time. But they also held fast under horrific sieges of their major cities. Refused to abandon or surrender even when German forces were advancing on every relevant city and objective in Western Russia. Did the French have the resolve to hold Paris to the last man? The Russians were ready to do that in Stalingrad, Leningrad, and probably Moscow if it came to that.

The French? They simply pulled out and called Paris a free city. But I guess it worked out for them in the end. Would Paris be the ultimate tourist destination that it is today if the French had actually bothered to fight for it?

The Brits did not have their full force there nor were they fighting for their own home soil. Noone else who encountered the Wehrmacht that early were much beyond a second or third rate power. France was a first rate power that had to have been expecting (or at least preparing for the possibility of) war for the last 4-5 years or so. That they didn't last significantly longer than lesser powers like Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Norway and others is pretty bad.

I've just been reading a few accounts of the French war effort and its pretty sad. Yeah they were outmanned, outgunned, and out-materialed...suffered from some strategic incompetence and lack of proper intelligence, but these deficits were compounded by the outright defeatist attitude of the leadership and all but absent morale of many of the defending troops, many of whom abandoned positions that they could of held due to rumor and fear.

The Germans themselves were stretched. Didn't have perfect intelligence. A battle plan that was not followed due to insubordinate commanders. If positions were held and counterattacks made, they could have been stalled. But these efforts never really came.

The Greeks made a better showing in the war and they had a mere fraction of what the French did militarily.

And yeah, the Russians could give land for time. But they also held fast under horrific sieges of their major cities. Refused to abandon or surrender even when German forces were advancing on every relevant city and objective in Western Russia. Did the French have the resolve to hold Paris to the last man? The Russians were ready to do that in Stalingrad, Leningrad, and probably Moscow if it came to that.

The French? They simply pulled out and called Paris a free city. But I guess it worked out for them in the end. Would Paris be the ultimate tourist destination that it is today if the French had actually bothered to fight for it?
That's all pretty true actually. But you have to take into account that it wasn't the whole leadership that was defeatist. Reynaud and De Gaulle were desperately trying to change battlefield tactics, call on diplomacy to strengthen France's hand, and preparing to fight till the bitter end. It was pos' like Petain and Darlan that just presented France's pasty white arse cheeks to Hitler to do with what he wished.

I'm sure you could find cavalry charges anywhere on some scale. I saw one on the nws back in 2001 or so with the American in Aghganistan. The northern alliance lead a cavalry charge complete with sabres after the Americans softened up the Taleban via the airforce. It was caught on camera as well. Try youtube maybe I have to go to work.

^^

Some americans also charged on the horseback in Afghanistan. I got a book on american special troops, and there is a pic of it there. They really assaulted on the horseback with weapons drawn. Was only about 15 men or so though.

In Sudan the militia is often attacking on the horseback I guess. But dunno if it counts as its not a real army.

The last one I'm aware of was in the 1939 German invasion of Poland - apparently desperate Polish troops charged German tanks (but I think this may have been denied by some Polish warfare buffs)

I've heard this SOOOO many times! It is false! We never charged tanks, what we did is go to battle field in horses because it was faster, then we dismounted and continued fighting on foot. ALL nations did that excluding maybe britain and america. We never charged tanks with horses. Infact the Germans, French, Italians and Russians used more horses in WWII then we did.

I don't think anyone is idiotic enough to charge a tank with horses.

...It's not especially glorious in itself, but just get your fact right.Since Vrylakas hasn't been online since last summer, maybe he won't see what you commented about a post he made six years ago.

The Brits did not have their full force there nor were they fighting for their own home soil.
Wouldn't have mattered if the Germans had been able to bring to bear on them what they brought to France. Saved by Channel.
Noone else who encountered the Wehrmacht that early were much beyond a second or third rate power. France was a first rate power that had to have been expecting (or at least preparing for the possibility of) war for the last 4-5 years or so. That they didn't last significantly longer than lesser powers like Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Norway and others is pretty bad.
And Greece, Yugoslavia and Norway all have formidable geography for defense. Certainly more so than the plains of northern France. Denmark doesn't, but Denmark lasted something like the Netherlands under the circumstances.
I've just been reading a few accounts of the French war effort and its pretty sad. Yeah they were outmanned, outgunned, and out-materialed...suffered from some strategic incompetence and lack of proper intelligence, but these deficits were compounded by the outright defeatist attitude of the leadership and all but absent morale of many of the defending troops, many of whom abandoned positions that they could of held due to rumor and fear.
British accounts then I take it?;) They weren't outgunned, outmanned and outmaterialised. The deciding factors lay elsewhere.
As for the moral, the German call at the time was that French moral problems were an effect of being outfought rather than a cause for being outfought. French moral is also hard to asses because it was uneven. Unwilling reservists in their forties, survivors of 1918, weren't exactly the first choice of anyone to take on German armoured spearheads. But they got landed with the job, since the quality units of the French army found themselves in the vicinity of the Dutch border, well away from the fight. Again a problem of dispositions and geography rather than moral or troop quality. A disaster, but hardly "sad" in the sense implied.
The Germans themselves were stretched. Didn't have perfect intelligence. A battle plan that was not followed due to insubordinate commanders. If positions were held and counterattacks made, they could have been stalled. But these efforts never really came.
Because the brilliance of the Sichelschnitt was to ensure that precisely the units that could have mounted a credible counterattack had ended up out of the way of the fighting, encircled to the north of it. The French lost for ending up all over the place except where they were needed. The units tasked with trying to stop the Germans were the second and third line formations, but not by design and not because the French lacked quality units as well.
The Greeks made a better showing in the war and they had a mere fraction of what the French did militarily.
Fighting the Italians most of the time, with geography on their side. Until the Germans took time off to help the Italians out, at which point the Greek fortunes took a nosedive.
And yeah, the Russians could give land for time. But they also held fast under horrific sieges of their major cities. Refused to abandon or surrender even when German forces were advancing on every relevant city and objective in Western Russia. Did the French have the resolve to hold Paris to the last man? The Russians were ready to do that in Stalingrad, Leningrad, and probably Moscow if it came to that.
If you look into it, there weren't in fact anyone to hold Paris to the last man. A few minor formations to mount a symbolic show at best, but nothing that could actually fortify any significant part of Paris. It would be a nightmate to attack, but only provided you had a decent supply of troops to defend it, and these couldn't be brought into Paris quick enough for the job. The Ardennes break-through and the speed of the German advance saw to that.
The French? They simply pulled out and called Paris a free city. But I guess it worked out for them in the end. Would Paris be the ultimate tourist destination that it is today if the French had actually bothered to fight for it?
Not if the Germans in 1944 hadn't thought better of blowing it up. The charges were already set. So yeah, the French and the Germans alike could agree on Paris actually being exceptional enough to spare both in 1940 and 1944.

I imagine that might rankle with a red-blooded brit, since blowing up that architectural monstrosity which is London would likely improve it.:mischief:

Fighting the Italians most of the time, with geography on their side. Until the Germans took time off to help the Italians out, at which point the Greek fortunes took a nosedive.

*nods*
And I found this claim (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199810/ai_n8817479) on the Interrant.

The actual reference is in the Book of Revelations where Meggido will be the site of the final battle between good and evil. As Rodgers said, it was probably chosen because of its historic qualities as a decisive battleground. I think the city of Jericho was very near there as well, but could be wrong.

I believe Megiddo is the gathering place of the worlds armies, the final battle will be fought for/in Jerusalem.

-------------------------------------------

With regards to the Polish cavalry charge against German armor:
Metaphor Alert! - The legend sprang up during the war that the Polish cavalry, hidebound in the nineteenth century, had charged German tanks using lances and sabres.

Not remotely true; for starters, the Poles stopped issuing lances for non-ceremonial duties after 1935...
http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/006381.html

The Brits did not have their full force there nor were they fighting for their own home soil. Noone else who encountered the Wehrmacht that early were much beyond a second or third rate power. France was a first rate power that had to have been expecting (or at least preparing for the possibility of) war for the last 4-5 years or so. That they didn't last significantly longer than lesser powers like Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Norway and others is pretty bad.

I've just been reading a few accounts of the French war effort and its pretty sad. Yeah they were outmanned, outgunned, and out-materialed...suffered from some strategic incompetence and lack of proper intelligence, but these deficits were compounded by the outright defeatist attitude of the leadership and all but absent morale of many of the defending troops, many of whom abandoned positions that they could of held due to rumor and fear.



The USSR was a first rate power which had, on a strategic level, been preparing for war with the west for over a decade. On the Soviet/Western border it had 12,000 aircraft, 15,000 tanks, 60,000 guns and mortar, and 190 divisions. Each of these forces outnumbered the German invading forces vastly. For examply, Germany invaded with just 3,600 tanks. Germany only outnumbered the USSR in terms of grunt foot soldiers. And it's hardly like the USSR could even say it was unexpected, Stalin himself had been warned many times by his own intelligence services that an attack was impending.

Yet still operation Barborossa saw the Wermacht capture an area larger then all France, Kill or captur over 800,000 Soviet troops, inflict massive tank casualties (6:1 kill ratios) and utterly cripple the Soviet airforce (2000 planes destroyed on the first day). And this was in a matter of weeks.

From this, we could deduce that the Red army is also 'sad'. Alongside the French, the Polish, the Greeks. So on and so forth. Or we could deduce that none of these armies were sad, rather, that the Wermacht was a terrifyingly efficient fighting machine. One able to take control of all Western Europe no less :rolleyes:


You could say that the Soviet union redeemed itself by going on the whip the German army, but it's a bit hard to do this when all of your country is under enemy control. You don't have any handy industrial powerhouses just east of the Urals. Perhaps to redeem themselves France could have tried to create a highly successful and widespread guerilla restance? Hey! Wait a second....

N.B It's a bit unfair to compare how long France held out with how long smalled countries held out. Theres such a thing as commensurate force, and Greece was hardly invaded on the same scale as France.

This site (http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html) claims the Italians made the last cavalry charge, in 1942. On the Russian front, as I already suspected in my last post.

Don´t be too surprised if I find something else. :D

Last know calvary charge with sabars ONLY. yes i would say so.
Russians use cossak troops for inflilation and scouting upto late 44 i would say

Cavalry charges are still going on all the time, in Afghanistan and Sudan amongst other places.

Last know calvary charge with sabars ONLY. yes i would say so.
Russians use cossak troops for inflilation and scouting upto late 44 i would say

IIRC the Soviets used Cossack (and other formations)Calvary right up till the end of the War in Europe, such as the Capture of the Pomeranian town of Leba.

Also im pretty sure that in Operation Bagration (22nd June-19 August 1944) Cossack troops used their sabres extensively 'even cutting at arms raised in surrender'.

I've always thought that it was the USA against Pancho Villa. Is this right?

No. There was a cavalry charge in Afghanistan by the 'Northern Alliance' at some point a few years ago IIRC. I'll try to find the source.

At Bai Beche the crucial breakthrough occurred by accident. A Green Beret told one of Dostum’s lieutenants to get his horses ready for action while they got aircraft into position. This was misinterpreted as a signal to charge. The men of ODA 595 watched in disbelief as 250 horsemen galloped straight at a Taliban position a mile away that was about to be bombed. They were convinced that a “friendly fire” catastrophe was about to occur. No one would ever have intentionally ordered a cavalry charge in such close proximity with an air strike. But it worked out better than anyone could have expected. One of the Green Berets recalled: “Three or four bombs hit right in the middle of the enemy position. Almost immediately after the bombs exploded, the horses swept across the objective — the enemy was so shell-shocked. I could see the horses blasting out the other side. It was the finest sight I ever saw. The men were thrilled; they were so happy. It wasn’t done perfectly, but it will never be forgotten.”

http://www.afji.com/2006/11/2146103

Can that be called the last successful cavalry charge?

No. There was a cavalry charge in Afghanistan by the 'Northern Alliance' at some point a few years ago IIRC. I'll try to find the source.



http://www.afji.com/2006/11/2146103

Can that be called the last successful cavalry charge?
It can be called the most awesome! I wish they'd videotaped it.

Wouldn't have mattered if the Germans had been able to bring to bear on them what they brought to France. Saved by Channel.

Saved by a navy. Who existed for exactly such a purpose. If there wasnt the channel then there would have been less resorces for the navy and more for the army. It's not like it was just a wild fluke that the Brits considered the navy the senior service.

IIRC the Soviets used Cossack (and other formations)Calvary right up till the end of the War in Europe, such as the Capture of the Pomeranian town of Leba.

Also im pretty sure that in Operation Bagration (22nd June-19 August 1944) Cossack troops used their sabres extensively 'even cutting at arms raised in surrender'.

Wasnt the calvary backed by T34s ??? IIRC the calvary was used to chase the routed germans in areas that the tanks couldnt get to such as swamp areas. The cossack were also armed with rifles but given the paniced german troops fleeing like cattle they hacked them down by the thousands.

I guess it would count even if it was primarly the russian artillary and tanks that routed the german troops and then the calvary went in.

Also im pretty sure that in Operation Bagration (22nd June-19 August 1944) Cossack troops used their sabres extensively 'even cutting at arms raised in surrender'.
Wasnt the calvary backed by T34s ??? IIRC the calvary was used to chase the routed germans in areas that the tanks couldnt get to such as swamp areas. The cossack were also armed with rifles but given the paniced german troops fleeing like cattle they hacked them down by the thousands.
You are referring to the Pliev Cav/Mech Group, including I Mechanized Corps and IV Guards Cavalry Corps. Used in the "Bobruisk" part of Bagration, it was a sort of ad hoc unit that exploited the gap torn in Army Group Center's front line with the virtual destruction of the 9th Army. I believe that it also participated in the Minsk encirclement, though I need to double-check that.

One of the most awesome formations in history. :p

Wow....I knew the French got their a$$es handed to them, but I never realized it happened that quickly. That's...pretty sad.

It's not as if anyone else could have done better in the given situation, including the Germans: there were 16 French reserve divisions assigned to guard the Ardennes front, all of them infantry. Coming through the Ardennes were 45 experienced German divisions, including 7 armored ones.

The only French units to break and run were these 16 Ardennes divisions, but who can blame them? The other hundred or so that were in Belgium fought valiantly and stood their ground, even holding Army Group B under von Bock up, and only retreating when forced to, as Army Group A drove for the Somme after the Ardennes breakout, threatening to pin the entire Allied ground forces in Belgium.

France made the best of a bad situation, but they were thoroughly outwitted by the Manstein Plan. Had it been any other army in that situation, even American or German, you would have seen a similar result.

France was a first rate power that had to have been expecting (or at least preparing for the possibility of) war for the last 4-5 years or so.

The Germans themselves were stretched. Didn't have perfect intelligence. A battle plan that was not followed due to insubordinate commanders.

German commanders were for the most part aristocratic, old Prussian-types, raised and trained in that tradition. They were taught to think for themselves, and to disobey orders to acomplish their objectives. It's no mystery that the best commanders of the war, Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, and Runstedt, chronically disobeyed orders, and were repeatedly sacked by Hitler for it.

If positions were held and counterattacks made, they could have been stalled. But these efforts never really came.

The only opportunity for this was during Army Group A's drive for the Somme; had the Allies had any real reserves left, they could have hit Army Group A's vulnerable northern flank, but they had no reserves to manouver with by this point, and thus were unable to take avantage of such a situation.

The Greeks made a better showing in the war and they had a mere fraction of what the French did militarily.

The Greeks were fighting the Italians.

Did the French have the resolve to hold Paris to the last man? The Russians were ready to do that in Stalingrad, Leningrad, and probably Moscow if it came to that.

The French? They simply pulled out and called Paris a free city. But I guess it worked out for them in the end. Would Paris be the ultimate tourist destination that it is today if the French had actually bothered to fight for it?

What could the French possibly have acomplished by "holding Paris to the last man," other than a destroyed city and millions of dead French?

The Russians fought to the last man because they were threatened with execution if they retreated, and because Stalin ordered them to.

The charges were already set. So yeah, the French and the Germans alike could agree on Paris actually being exceptional enough to spare both in 1940 and 1944.

It was nothing to do with the quality of Paris. The Germans knew they were not going to win in 1944 and had no rational reason to antagonise the French.

I imagine that might rankle with a red-blooded brit, since blowing up that architectural monstrosity which is London would likely improve it.:mischief:

You got EuroDisney, we got the 2012 Olympics.

It was nothing to do with the quality of Paris. The Germans knew they were not going to win in 1944 and had no rational reason to antagonise the French.
It was more of a group effort, negotiated between the French resistance and von Choltitz and von Speydel. Choltitz had had no qualms about dynamiting Warsaw, but got cold feet about Paris, to the point of finally disobeying Hitler's direct orders. The sheer magnitude of blowing up Paris did get to the people tasked with it, so I'd say the fact that it was Paris, specifically, did matter.