Last known cavalry charge

[Rodgers]

"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.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

 

[redtom]

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

 

[Richard III]

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.

 

[pawpaw]

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.

 

[natvefox]

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....

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Steph]

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.

*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.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[rilnator]

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?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

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.

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

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?

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[cFccFc]

^^

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.

 

[TheLastOne36]

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.

 

[mrtn]

...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.