Are there are any armies that still field combat cavalry?

[BvBPL]

Watching a TV that features a conflict with a ceremonial mounted cavalry division. That got me thinking.

Do any contemporary armies still field cavalry units for combat?

 

[Domen]

You mean horse-mounted cavalry?

Or for example motorized cavalry / air cavalry?

 

[BvBPL]

Horse-mounted cavalry.

 

[Lillefix]

I looked this up on wikipedia years ago...

Other than ceremonial reasons, normally no.

But here's a picture of us special forced in Afghanistan 2001.

 

[Domen]

Well, the answer is yes. Examples:

1) - United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
2) - United States Army Special Forces in Afghanistan

You can see soldiers of both these armies in this picture:

]

And some links:

http://olive-drab.com/od_army-horses-mules_afghanistan.php

 

[BvBPL]

Cool, thanks.

 

[Domen]

And the Soviet Army between 1984 and early 1990s also had one small unit of combat cavalry:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2229

 

[History_Buff]

Though it's worth noting that these aren't cavalry in the romantic sense, in that they plan on charging on horseback to disrupt formations. These units are dragoons, who utilize animals as low-tech transport, but do their fighting on foot.

 

[Perfection]

Horse-mounted cavalry.

Horse mounted air cavalry!

 

[BvBPL]

Well, the answer is yes. Examples:

1) - United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
2) - United States Army Special Forces in Afghanistan

Wow, that's like a modern day Ballad of East and West. Kipling rules!

 

[MobBoss]

Well, the answer is yes. Examples:

1) - United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
2) - United States Army Special Forces in Afghanistan

Uhm. Just because they are using horses doesnt make them 'calvary' in the traditional military sense of the word.

 

[Domen]

Though it's worth noting that these aren't cavalry in the romantic sense, in that they plan on charging on horseback to disrupt formations.

Well, true, because the idea that mounted charge is the primary way of combat for cavalry died already during & shortly after WW1.

Which, however, doesn't mean that they don't plan on charging on horseback at all. The fact that US-Northern Alliance cavalry in Afghanistan actually did perform at least one mounted charge in 2001 and the fact that the mentioned Soviet cavalry unit had - apart from AK-47s - also sabers, confirm this.

BTW - although cavalry (as proven above) still exists, in fact WW2 was the last war when cavalry was used on large scale.

Uhm. Just because they are using horses doesnt make them 'calvary' in the traditional military sense of the word.

Well you the wrong sense of the traditional military sense of this word apparently.

Plus you probably didn't read the article in the link - in 2001 there actually was a traditional, mounted cavalry charge in Afghanistan.

Performed by that combined American & Afghan Northern Alliance cavalry force mentioned above.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, just for arguements sake there is indeed a difference in 'calvary' and 'mounted infantry'.

 

[Domen]

What difference exactly? When I think "mounted infantry" I think about poor riding skills...

On the other hand, when I think "cavalry" I think about skilled, experienced riders.

Well, most cavalry in 20th century fought mainly dismounted. So you would call it "mounted infantry" (guys who ride to battle on horses but then fight on foot). However, most of these units were also trained horse riders & were also trained in mounted combat - apart from being trained to fight like infantry. Not mentioning that they usually had "cavalry" in their name. And they usually had sabers apart from rifles & other weapons. And ocasionally charged.

I wouldn't call them "mounted infantry" thus.

 

[MobBoss]

The difference is calvary fight from their mounts. Mounted infantry dismounts and then fights.

Its just like there is a difference between 'armor' units, mechanized units, motorized units, and infantry units. All have different equipment tables, and different abilities on the battlefield.

And your incorrect on calvary fighting dismounted. There were even calvary charges of polish calvary against german armor/infantry units that got destroyed utterly making their charges; whilst the German army itself still used horses quite a bit in moving its 'infantry' units.

 

[Domen]

And for example Polish cavalry regiments in 1939 divided into three "types" of regiments:

- regiments of uhlans
- regiments of mounted rifles (or mounted riflemen)
- regiments of chevaulegers

Uhlans - is a name typical for 19th century cavalry.
Chevaulegers - is a name typical for 19th century cavalry.
Mounted rifles - is a name typical for 19th century mounted infantry.

However, there was no real difference between them - apart from different name & different parade uniforms.

These units are dragoons, who utilize animals as low-tech transport, but do their fighting on foot.

Dragoons started their "career" as mounted infantry, but later transformed into light cavalry. Or maybe not "transformed", but the name "dragoons" was later used to describe units of typical cavalry (not just units of mounted infantry, like at the beginning in 16th - early 17th centuries).

 

[MobBoss]

I would argue that the men in those units would indeed argue about difference in them.

And of course there were differences in those units in equipment and doctrine. But if one refuses to acknowledge that, then /oh well.

My point stands. Special forces guys using horses to ride around on simply arent accurately described as being 'Calvary' and any soldier in a US Cav Squadron would probably fight you over it if you insisted they were.

 

[Domen]

I would argue that the men in those units would indeed argue about difference in them.

They all fought in the same way, had the same field uniforms, the same weapons.

I don't think they would. Names of those units were what they were because those units "continued" the military traditions of units which existed in previous centuries. They believed that their lineages traced back to units which existed in 18th - 19th centuries. This is the case also in other armies - for example in the US army even nowadays there is a unit called "7th Cavalry Regiment" and it has exactly the same coat of arms and the same march tune as those poors guys who got massacred at the Little Big Horn in 1876. And wikipedia also claims that the lineage of this regiment "traces back to the mid-19th century".

==================================

Edit:

Above I was referring to uhlan / chevauleger / mounted rifles regiments of the Polish cavalry, of course.

Special forces guys using horses to ride around

Only to ride around? The article says:

http://olive-drab.com/od_army-horses-mules_afghanistan.php

"The campaign was a weird combination of space-age gadgetry (cell phones, GPS, laser targeting, aircraft and satellites, advanced comm gear and weapons) meshed with medieval combat (men on horseback, cavalry charges, hand-to-hand butchery, clanish rivalries, and primitive infrastructure). The role of horses was central since there was no other transportation for the tasks as hand."

And there are also other articles about that unit, for example:

http://www.indepthinfo.com/afghanistan/horse-soldiers.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/571498/posts

"Washington -- U.S. special forces working with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan have ridden in cavalry charges against Taliban militia positions, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said."

http://www.strangehistory.net/2010/06/16/the-last-cavalry-charge-in history/

 

[MobBoss]

Yup, and they still wear Cavalry caps and spurs, although today their mounts are tanks and APCs, but not horses.

 

[red_elk]

Contemporary Russian army has pack transport platoon in mountain brigade.

It doesn't have cavalry in traditional sense, of course.