Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Not necessarily. Judging by weight, maybe yes. But judging by role, modern Armored Cav is pretty much light cavalry--mostly meant for scouting, screening, and harassment rather than charging straight into the enemy (which would be the job of "Armor" without the "ed Cavalry"). And of course we have Airmobile Cavalry, which is frequently (and I think not incorrectly) stated to be the closest thing that a fully mechanized army has to classic light cavalry.... (Note that my preferred definition of "light" cavalry may differ from most people's, especially Peter's; I put the dividing line between "light" and "heavy" strictly on role, usually without regard to equipment.) |
I agree with placing role over equipment in the definition, as role has changed FAR less over history than equipment. However, the reason I call modern cavalry (excluding airmobile) a descendent of heavy cavalry is the armor. Though Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Strykers may be well-suited for light cavalry roles such as scouting, screening, and reconnaissance, the only reason they are tactically viable is that their armor keeps them alive. Until the demise of horse cavalry, light cavalry did not wear much if any armor to perform these roles. Now it's a prerequisite.
In the urban combat that is especially prevalent today, these units (Armored Cav) perform a heavier role. They support the infantry by providing cover and extra firepower. They can have a shock value, too. In such a role they are more like knights than the light cavalry they were originally intended to be.
A good example of modern light cavalry would be the use of Marine Recon units in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They drove unarmored Humvees at the forefront of a huge mounted advance. In terms of their equipment (no armor and lighter weapons), they resembled light cavalry, but they walked a fine line between shock and screening/reconnaissance roles.
Peter Bosman wrote: |
Even present day modern armies stiil use the horse. US army had special light units go into Tora Bora on horseback. Mounted infantry realy. In several regions in Africa the horse is still a warriors tool and exclusively light cavalry: used for bandit raids just like it was 3000 years ago in asia and what revolutionised the north american plains indian way of life. It is more versatile than the universal pick-up truck since it does not need roads. |
Ah yes, that was 5th Special Forces Group. Excellent case of adapting to the situation at hand.
For what it's worth, I drove a pickup across the Kabul river, so I don't think roads are totally necessary for trucks either ;)
Peter Bosman wrote: |
This might be a good one to start a new thread as there is an optimum:: the least possible Anything else is a compromise dictated by tactics, by mounted forces fullfilling tactical roles that strengthen the effectiveness and versatility of an army beyond ' mere' skirmishing centaurs. The extra contribution to the army however is NOT an improvement in 'cavalryness' as all that compromises the agility and speed of the horse compromises the centaur. Optimum therefor must be split in optimum for the army and optimum for the horsepowered human brain. Optimum for the latter means that less is more. |
Why is the optimum for the horseman always a minimum of armor? Doesn't survivability play a role in his combat effectiveness? I would argue that a compromise is inevitable, and for many roles the compromise must be made to sacrifice some agility for survivability. The same is true for infantry too.
Peter Bosman wrote: |
Some people call it evolution of language as an excuse for mistaken use and lack of inventiveness. |
Not to nitpick, but language does evolve. There are probably hundreds of examples in common usage where the root of the word no longer has a direct connection to the modern practice or meaning.
I'm a sucker for horses too, but we've got to accept the fact that they're not of much use anymore on the battlefield (previous examples excepted). :)
Great debate guys, let's continue the discussion!