/k/ - Weapons

Mongolia still uses them for border patrol. In general though, the machine gun has killed the cavalry/dragoon.

>>557144

That was the answer I feared. Still, they had a pretty good run.

>>557139

>Is there a future for horses in a military capacity?

Apart from parades, no.

Cavalry is still pretty cool.

>>557157

Is this an area where horses could simply never be surpassed?

>>557139

Potentially there's a use for mounted men in low(ish) risk, long distance, low intensity work. Things like border patrols or non-theatre airbase defence. Basically any area where a soldier has to cover a lot of ground, at relatively low speed, with limited risk of being shot at. If you love the visual of regiments of horse charging across the battlefield then good on you, that's completely understandable. However that died with WW1, and it had been on the way out for a while by then.

>>557162

Guess I'll have to give up on my dream of cyborg cataphracts.

>>557162

>Basically any area where a soldier has to cover a lot of ground, at relatively low speed, with limited risk of being shot at.

I'd add the additional caveat of "heavily wooded"/uneven terrain to that, because the same thing you described could also be accomplished by ATVs or something similar.

>>557139

motorcycles have replaced them.

>>557169

True, woodland and ground too rough for motorised vehicles is their niche. It's a pretty specialised role though.

>>557144

Just breed/genetically engineer bullet proof horses.

Thread theme.

>>557229

Horses are for bitches. Infantry4lyfe

>>557169

>>557177

Horses also have the advantage of being able to live off the land. If you're anticipating a situation that makes resupply difficult for a long-term operation, the lower speed of a horse might be a worthwhile tradeoff for its fuel literally growing out of the ground.

>>557240

>cavfags don't know about cavalry squares and modern weapons

Horses are for bitches and the Poles.

>>557246

>not having the commoners in the artillery corps deal with infantry squares

>Pleb intensifies

>>557249

>not using skirmishers to take out batteries like a real ranger

>[Britbong faggotry intensifies]

>>557252

>Not riding skirmishers down with your Hussars

Are you Irish or something?

>>557256

>Charging entrenched guns with cavalry

We tried that in Crimea. It doesn't work all that well.

>>557254

You can't ride down when we're hiding in the forests, guy.

>>557258

What fucking retard put his guns in forested terrain?

>>557268

Good luck. Cav and arty may make breakthroughs, but the last 100 yards will always belong to the footsoldier.

>>557177

(checked)

However the SADF (old SA) armed forces had both a cavalry and a motorcycle division and that was relatively recent in historial terms.

>>557241

You've gotta keep an eye on what they eat, Horses are dumb enough to eat stuff that'll kill em.

>>557276

I feel like motorcycles are the modern horse.

Sending hundreds of armed men on motorbikes into combat sounds pretty fucking cool.

>>557233

You enjoy looking up to your betters I see

>>557241

Good point.

>>557139

>In a military capacity

Only as transportation measures. Horses largely became obsolete at the start of the 20th century for a reason. Trenches completely negate the advantage of a horseback fighter in the field, and machine guns have a much easier time hitting the bigger target that the horseman presents.

The only reason to employ horses in modern war is if your force lacks gasoline or off-road vehicles which are in every way superior to horses.

The age of the horseback warrior ended the moment melee combat became obsolete due to the overwhelming power of ranged weapons.

The Germans still use some mounted riflemen(lost my images of them) and in that role it could still be feasible, they can better traverse certain terrain than vehicles can.

>>557555

Why use such an outdated firing mechanism when modern heavy weaponry is much more efficient? In the ""current year"" we have ordnance that explodes on contact, which has much more devastating effect that what you propose. Such weapons were employed to fire at infantry and cavalry moving in formation in the open. Such scenarios do not exist in modern war.

>>557490

The reason they still have cav in China is mainly cause of the terrain in Yunnan and Tibet I believe.

Not like it matters cause most people are fucked at 4.5K m alt, a soldier there has a tour duty of two months and he takes a month to fucking adjust lol

>This entire thread

>One of the best cavalry charges committed to (non fictional) film hasn't been posted yet

Granted there are a few historical inaccuracies in the vid mostly from trying to use Cossacks to play heavy cavalry but it's still a film that every /k/ommando should watch at least once.

>>557573

We sill use canister shot with Abrams tanks today. Also a HE FRAGS used in close proximity to friendlies often results in collateral damage. Also a canister/grapeshot round would do more damage to what you're shooting than a frag round, but the damage wouldn't be in a 360° radius.

>Firing mechanism

Didn't mention anything about that. It would be fired the same way you'd fire a normal tank gun.

tl;dr: What I'm proposing is a tankette armed with a large smooth bore gun that can shred nearly anything in front of it.

>>557626

> What I'm proposing is a tankette armed with a large smooth bore gun that can shred nearly anything in front of it.

We have machineguns

There're quadrupled robots being built that can serve the same role as a horse without its cons. I think that it has been tested as a human transportation vehicle already.

>>557630

What about a tankette with a smooth bore cannon that shoots a bundle of machine guns that start shooting once they leave the barrel?

>>557630

The machine gun is the secondary. The machine gun can't take out swath of people in a millisecond, or destroy a small building, machine nest

>>557646

’’’A’’’ machinegun can’t see >>557646 for solution.

>>557273

You mean the last 1.5 seconds

>>557150

>implying

>>557139

Scouts. They were used in Afghanistan somewhat recently, because legs > wheels.

>>557146

Well if we ever get armor or some kind of tech that could bring the viability of the horsemen or infantry charge back onto the battlefield we may start to see them make a return. And militaries might begin seriously training troops in melee combat.

>>557241

Wild horses perhaps, but horses that were used for military service were fed fodder. Often a particular type of fodder. If horses were to start eating fresh grass the sudden change in their diet would make them sick. Itprobably wouldnt kill them or cause lasting damage but they certainly wouldn't be able to perform their duties or participate in combat.

>>557139

Didn’t the Rhodies have a cavalry regiment during the bush war? They were very small though, so that’s why their exploits were rarely heard

>>568298

Grey's Scouts.

Haven't read a lot about them yet, but they had a decent rep.

>not genetically engineering dragons and having dragon riders fly over San Francisco dropping napalm grenades and shooting their dragons' fire breath at everything

Amateurs. Get on my level.

>modern cavalry thread

>nobody mentions beasts of burden

Mules are chill as fuck.