The Lighthorsemen - Ambushing the Ambushers

[russ9356]

we should be doing this in lakemba

[aszkanfederation28]

the turkish general is bold but stupid .

[ThePalaeontologist]

I love their uniforms...proper soldiery.

[AlexSDU]

Why don't they just shoot while mounting, instead of having to dismount 1st?

The Native American did it, as seen in most movies, and so does the Arabs(Lawrence of Arabia & Lion of the Desert).

[truffyt]

@AlexSDU Because it's incredibly difficult to take propper aim, manouver the bolt, etc from a horse. You'd have to stop the horse as well if you'd like to actually hit, and that would make you into a easier target. The main reason this charge was successful was that they moved in on the Turks so fast that they panicked and failed to adjust the range in their sights, meaning that they overshot the Australians rather soon in the charge.

[cheechnchongsbong]

@AlexSDU The Australian Light horse were one of the most effective cavalry forces in history...40,000 horsemen ran riot across the holy lands in WW1 - the charge at Beersheeba was the last great and successful cavalry charge in history. The Light Horse were really mounted infantry but under the command of Harry Chauvel they became the scourge of the Turkish army and the pride of the British Empire

[AlexSDU]

@cheechnchongsbong & @truffyt

Thanks for the interesting facts, mates. But actually I was referring to the one in this scene, 3:32, where the officer ordered them to halt and dismount. It take time to from dismounting from the horse until ready they to fire, even if it only take them less then a minute.

[cheechnchongsbong]

@AlexSDU hi Alex...it might be of interest to you to know that the Light Horse were sent to Gallipoli and fought as infantry where they were decimated in such actions as "The Nek" and "Quinns Post"...you're right...shooting from the mounted position can be very ineffective - most of the Australian Light Horsemen were bushmen and farmers sons - they had learned to ride and shoot in their youth...they were tough and hard people who proved to be outstanding soldiers at war...

[rpsmith221]

one thing to consider in this use of the lance discussion is the range factor. Its range is pretty limited and rigid. Where as machine guns and rifles pretty much made them useless. Take WW2 for example. The whole idea of cavalry was pretty much a has been idea with the advent of tanks ans armoured vehicles. The polish cavalry at that time was wiped out by the Germans for that reason. The Russians used cavalry during WW2 but mainly to get forces behind the entrenched German positions. Look it up

[gnarkillkicksass]

War is no good. Games like call of duty etc just glorify what could end up as anyone suffering a horrid death. I guess dieing in hospital is a luxury now... Remember next time you watch the news about people killed in far off wars, each person was some poor mothers son.

[liverpoolmatt87]

@gnarkillkicksass I dont see how you can equate real life war to a computer game because they're both different.

[rdjhardy]

these guys were cavalry. They began to fight as mounted infantry as campaigns dictated, but remained cavalry.

[burkeshaw]

@seoden With the invention of the percussion cap and perfection of the metal jacket bullet, weaponry became more efficient and GUNS like "The Brown Bess" flintlock standard military issue up to the Napolionic War were replaced by RIFLES like the Springfield/ Lee Enfield (muzzle loaders and devastating during The Civil War) and bullet breach loaders like The Martini-Henry of The Zulu War - not to mention The Gatling and Maxim Machine Guns. Cavalry were obsolete and became more mounted infantry.

[skittification]

@seoden How the hell do you expect a man to deal with a lance AND a rifle. The lance would be an encumberance reducing the rifles efficiency.

Another keyboard warrior huh.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@skittification

Pack the rifle in the saddle boot, and slung the lance underneath the saddle? The rifle was meant for dismounted use anyway, when the lance should be left behind on the horse.

But yeah giving a cavalrymen both lance and rifle was generally considered overkill. Most European cavalry units in the late 19th century has the first rank troopers carrying lances while the rest substituted a carbine for it. Troopers not in the first rank couldn't use lances anyway during a charge.

[skittification]

@HaNsWiDjAjA

These lads were mounted infantry, not cavalry.

The introduction of the machine gun had rendered cavalry charges obsolete and confined their usefulness to scouting / recce duties. The horses were purely a means to move the men quickly to a point where they could dismount and engage the enemy.

The lance would have been of no use to these men, just an encumberence.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@skittification

I understand that, indeed European military thinkers were quite a bit outdated in the way they think mounted troops would perform in future conflicts in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Occasionally cavalry charges could still succeed though, as seen also in this movie. At Beersheba it was definitely the right move to make. Eventually some of the ALH were issued swords so they could fight mounted more effectively.

[skittification]

@HaNsWiDjAjA

It is interesting to read about the huge amount of resources used by cavalry units on the Western front.

These men and resources could have been put to far better use.

The idea that the cavalry could exploit a break through of the trench systems, with hindsight, seems unrealistic.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@skittification

Perhaps, but the idea of mounted infantry acting as an exploitation force is not that far fetched, they just needed to wait until the introduction of the tank. By that time however, the lorry has taken over the role of the horse. The Soviets formed a lot of combined cavalry and tank units during WWII, many of which performed with great success.

[skittification]

@HaNsWiDjAjA

Too much concentrated artillery with the range to crush cavalry in the limited areas of the Western front.

However I agree that in the wide open Russian Steppes, cavalry (mounted infantry), both Russian and German were used successfully in conjunction with tanks. Once APCs were available and reliable, even this role for the horse was obselete.

[darthroden]

@HaNsWiDjAjA

The Russian and Ukrainian steppes were good places for cavalry, and the Russians had great tanks, though the guys running them were not as good with them as their German Panzer counterparts. The Soviets had the advantage of knowing the ground, how to fight on it, and how to use cavalry and tanks where they were needed....they just threw them at the Germans and pushed the bastards back.

[berowra7]

The turks were very very good fighters,Iam a grandson of the lighthorseman knowing the facts,they're fair dinkum.

[slimshadythe2nd]

Interesting movie....as a Turk, Austrailia and New Zealand will will always be our enemy. though I believe Australians are some of the toughest and bravest men in the world

[pudssey]

@slimshadythe2nd A fair and intersting comment Shady. I take it you are a Turk living in a foreign land where you see yourself as a Turk , But back in Turkey the Turks dont see you as a Turk.

[slimshadythe2nd]

@pudssey very true.... but i have had the misfortune of being born in the U.S and only being half Turk. But if i could i would move to Turkey, i am guessing you are a Turkish immigrant in Germany..... odd comment if that is true

[51velocity]

remember gelibolu!



[seoden]

A tactical question: why didn't all cavalry units adopt the lance considering it's not a substantial financial burden, and yet gives a bonus against enemy cavalry especially against enemy cavalry? Even dragoons could benefit from from having lances. Even with rifles, enemy cavalry could still reach your infantry lines so a wooden pole with a sharp bit on the end would have still been useful. Just an interesting thought

[HenryvKeiper]

@seoden Once you get past the sharp, pointy end of the lance, it's pretty much useless.

[fp470]

@seoden The Lighthorse drill originally included scope for a melee (white) weapon but the political controversy of cavalry, mounted infantry and mounted rifles and a very tight Australian Commonwealth government refused to invest money it it. The Boer War saw the LightHorse in a mounted infantry role so it further retarded the idea, but on paper the LightHorse drill kept the lance for ceremonial drill, so there was scope for it. The founder of the Light Horse Lt. Col Hutton wanted lances...con't

[fp470]

@seoden part 2... but was overuled by the civilian government. In 1918 the ALH alongside the NZMR and the British Cavalry had to advance great distances and engage a number of enemy positions and at times small enemy cavalry patrols. IN 1918 a number of LIghthorse made the leap to proffesional cavlary by adopting a sabre, the British Cavalry already had them, the NZMR refused the offer.

The Sabre was adopted because; cheaper, shorter training time and more useful against infantry.

[JeremyPCresswell]

@fp470 The NZMR were never considered cavalry by the NZ Dominion Govt. of the time or by the members of the NZMR. They were, as the name suggests, mounted infantry and "trained" as such. The training was minimal, to say the least, as they were territorial (national guard) units The majority of the NZMR were city-folk so not used to riding in the first place. The NZMR, unlike the ALH, never made any mounted attacks so were never armed for that contingency.

[fp470]

@JeremyPCresswell The NZMR, like the ALH, were not mounted infantry but it would not be fair to rightly describe them as conventional cavalry. They were a form of cavalry common in the 19th century British dominions designated as mounte rifles which meant they played simplified cavlary roles. Their doctrine and the attitude was that they would stay in that role whilst the ALH shifted their doctrine to become cavalry, wihch is why I state the NZMR refused the offer to become cavalry per se.

[diverdown48]

@seoden It is a fact that horses will not run into lances or fixed bayonettes. Lancers charing other lancers is not the same. The horse sees the lance on the ground obstacle but not the mounted lance.

[moakley]

@seoden the Australians were not cavalry they were mounted riflemen

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@seoden

This was a matter that created a lot of controversy among military men in the 19th and even up to the early 20th century. In fact most European cavalry units by the end of the 19th century carried lances, usually by half of the men in the unit who were supposed to form the first rank. The arguments whether the saber (there's another argument here, between thrusting and cutting oriented sabers) or the lance was the most effective cavalry weapon seemed to have no end.

[rdjhardy]

@seoden The lance was considered a weapon for light cavalry only.

[gnarkillkicksass]

@seoden Aussies were Light Horse soldiers (ie mobile) the Turks were Cavalry in the true sense. The Aussie units had pack horses with machine gun units but never intended to fight on horseback though they did famously once at Beersheba, they just had rifles and bayonets with supporting machine guns.

[Wolfen443]

@seoden, gbecause the lance was a carry over of the pre Pikemen, Long Bowmen & Crossbow times. Once Infantry was able to form in formations & keep at bay cavalry the lance became useless. After fire arms were introduced it became a burden to the cavalry troops in the face of long range combat mostly.

[pchwang]

@seoden

It's also very heavy, and not very easy to use. The movies make it look simple, but to use a lance accurately is rather difficult, especially if you're galloping at the enemy. The Polish used to be renowned throughout Europe for producing the best lancer cavalry, and their lancers used to be able to pluck tent pegs out of the ground with the tip of the lance while holding it with one hand. That's actually how they practiced in order to learn to "aim" the lancer.

[liverpoolmatt87]

@seoden what you have to remember is that australians were not europeans and the creation of the light horse was created by their own idea. even lord kitchener highly respected the lighthorse because he can see how tactifully useful they became.

[sheepsfoot2]

send the poofter home.....

[Briselance]

@sheepsfoot2

Poofter ? Aww c'mon, man ... Do you find it that easy to shoot at fleeing men ? Or even to shoot at an enemy soldier going back alone on the battle field, risking his own damn f-ing life to save one of his brothers-in-arms ?

[Briselance]

@Briselance

The Turkish cavalryman, at 02:23, who tries to save his comrade ... that, people, is the real way of the soldier. Never leave anyone behind. Those who shoot at such men are merciless bastards.

[Briselance]

@Briselance

I mean, no one in their right mind, no one having a little of honor would shoot at field-medic or at a soldier picking a friend up, huh ?

[Timon717]

I agree with the men who want not to shoot

[Briselance]

@Timon717

If one doesn't want to shoot, then why did one joined the Army ?

Still ... if I had been in this man's boots, I'd probably have done the same ... shooting enemies who know you're in front of them is one thing, but shooting almost at point blank enemies who don't suspect anything is much, much harder. The snipers feel this sometimes, the feeling they're murdering someone, and not simply killing an enemy in "fair" combat. That's why snipers are often portrayed as ruthless and inhumane.

[polyphony89]

@Briselance In WW1 many men joined simply out of peer pressure. Australian society deemed men to be cowards if they didn't join.

[sheepsfoot2]

@polyphony89 YES my great uncle didnt want to join,WW1. he liked the Germans,he had met. UNTIL he was handed a white feather,by a local woman,,who had a son overseas fighting..so my g -uncle joinedup..sent to the western front..killed shortly after.... Aust didnt bring in conscription until 1942... before that..all volunteers ..BUT did they have a say in it...white feathers..shuned..dirty looks etc.

a young man with pride = cannon fodder.

[dusty123able]

@Timon717 sir.because of men that wont shoot,the brown "dogs" have taken over our homelands.no disrespect intended,but if we dont wake up our people will disappear

[Timon717]

@dusty123able I don't get you

[dusty123able]

@Timon717 you will sir you will.a german fighting the turks during tis time said '"if we as a people dont take care ofthis brown invasion now ,while we are strong our childrens children will not enjoy the freedom of our people"look at turkey now,almost purely muslem,you cannot walk thru their cities alone,we need to shoot our enemies sir is what i am getting at as cruel and inhumane as it sounds,THEY WILL!i mean no disrespect to u,just our kin bullt,i will respect and bac all their decisions

[bofts]

Excellent