Allen West: Obama Obviously Doesn’t Know Military Still Uses Horses, Bayonets

Mr. Allen West not understand."?

I am still stunned that the GOP is, once again, trying to change a soundbite of which there is both video and a transcript.

Tell us oh commander, what that discharge dishonorable?

riding thru the sands of Iraq under Poppy Bush in the early 90s?

Or the great galloping hordes that overtook Noriega in Panama?

The problem was these were to be used by the Iraqi Army, and if used properly could have provided Iraq with the edge it needed to defeat the Invasion. It also required that the Iraqi Soldiers be dedicated to the defeat of the Invasion, and it was clear that as far as the Shiite's were concern, a US controlled Government could NOT be any worse then one ruled by Saddam. Thus the needed DESIRE to defeat the US invasion was missing, but the Camels, horses, motorcycles and bicycles would have provided a mobile strategic reserve, even if fuel became tight. It would NOT have been as mobile as US Forces, but the Iraqi plan was to keep US forces out from between its two rivers and by doing so force the US to withdraw back across the desert. Thus Iraq had interior lines and did NOT have to move as far or as fast as American forces to get to any point of decision. The horses, mules and camels would have been in addition to movement of troops by truck, remember the US was outside the Iraqi Rivers trying to get in, the Iraqi Army was INSIDE those rivers doing its best to keep the US forces out.

Part of this was the result on the last night of Desert Storm 10 years before. The US bombed the road ahead of a massive Iraqi convoy and the road behind. On either sides was desert that if the trucks entered would have become stuck. After the convoy was stopped in its track, the US took its time to run planes up and down the convoy destroying all of the trucks. The US made this action a HUGE News event, until people started to ask, why were the trucks lined up one behind another AND where were the bodies? The US Military refused to answer that question, but anyone who operated in a convoy knew the answer. As soon as the convoy was blocked, every driver and passenger in those trucks abandoned them and headed out into the desert. They could NOT move their trucks into the desert but they could walk out. From the desert on both sides of the highway, the Iraqi troops watched the show and once it was over, walked back to Iraq, generally by staying off the road for any movement might bring a new air attack, thus they moved on the desert, which can be traveled by foot even when it can NOT be traveled by wheeled vehicles.

Horses, camels, motorcycles (if not to heavy), bicycles (if push through sand) can provide a good bit of mobility in deep sand. People can WALK through such sand pushing a bicycle or a motorcycle, horses, mules and camels can walk on their own through such sand.

Some wheeled vehicles can go through lose sand, for example "Dune Buggies", but that is due to their light weight and sand tires, tires that rapidly wear out if used on any other surface (Mud, dirt, in addition to pavement). Thus the defense of Iraq, given the overwhelming US Air Superiority, might have been better left to people on horseback (with horses and their riders being hauled in Trucks in areas with pavement).

The US used horses and mules extensively in Italy during WWII. The largest shipment of Mules out of the US during WWII was for US Operations in Burma. The only horse mounted US Cavarly unit that entered Combat, the 26th Calarly Regiment, fought off two Japanese Armor Regiments in the early days of 1942 (Yes WWII Japanese Army was of questionable worth, but the 26th Calvary had NO anti-tank weapons when it engaged the two armour regiments).

In Korea, any captured Mules had to be turned over to a Central Depot to be distributed on a priority basis. Most US Units quickly learned that meant any mules they captured would NOT be returned to them, so they just did not turn over any, keeping the mules for themselves. The mules could go anywhere a man could walk, carrying 400 pounds of equipment the the Soldiers did NOT have to carry themselves. The Mules were used in areas where trucks could not go, from where the trucks could go, to where the fighting was occurring. Units hauled the mules in Trucks to minimize wear and tear on the Mules. The Mules filled a very important niche, a niche the Italy Army still reserve for Mules (as do the Swiss, who also reserve horses for the same role). The US shipped a huge number of Mules to Pakistan to help the Afghanistan resistance to the Soviets in the 1980s, again for the mule could go where no other vehicle could go. Mules was the best way to work around the Soviet Air Superiority over Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Now, the US has avoided the use of Mules and Horse, for except for the Philippines campaign of 1941-1942, US forces has always operated in conditions where it had Air Superiority. With the last 100 US Army mules being replaced by 20 Helicopters in 1957, in areas where the US has Air Superiority, re-supply of troops on the ground can be done by Helicopter if it can NOT be done by Truck since Korea (some writers made the comment that lack of Mules hurt US operations in Vietnam, Helicopters could re-supply the troops, but during the actual fire fight it was hard for the Helicopters to land and provide the supply, many did but it also cost the lost of a lot of Helicopters, Mules with ammo for the day would have been a good supplement, the Helicopters would re-supply, but then the Mules could have carried excess ammo that might be needed the next day. Instead the US had to have the troops carry the extra ammo, including Mortar rounds for the Battalion and Company mortars. The mortar crew had to look into every soldiers Alice back to get the round each soldier was carrying. Yes, the Alice Pack replaced the Mule and was a bad replacement.

In Iraq, the horse and mule would NOT have helped the US Forces. The US forces had access to oil and its Tanks, APCs and MICVs could overcome any problems produced by Desert sands. The fuel consumption of all three exceeded whatever a mule could provide (Thus Helicopters provided the fuel, whenever 18 wheel fuel tankers could not). Thus a Mule would have been ineffective for US use in Iraq.

On the other hand, mules, camels and horses could have been a good supplement to Iraqi tanks and trucks. Had Iraq blown up its bridges, the US would have had to storm across its rivers at points where the Iraq could build up forces. Horses and camels could provide a mobile force to go from protected areas to where the US forces was trying to cross, thus avoiding direct air attacks by NOT being in the area before the US ground forces appeared. Thus the US would face the same situation it faced in Vietnam, the enemy refusing to stay in areas where the US can throw its artillery and air power at them, but only engaging in areas where to use such weapons meant hitting American forces at the same time (The Viet Cong referred to this as grabbing the enemy by his belt and holding on).

Now, in the above, I mentioned horses, camels and mules, but it appears that Iraq used trucks and cars for this function for both were faster then horses, camels and mules AND Iraq between the Rivers has extensive paved roads, so the advantages of horses, camels and mules would be minor compared to Afghanistan or other less developed areas. My point is horses, camels and mules are of limited use to the US, given it will always operate with complete Air Superiority but can be of great use to someone opposing the US Military.

Mules, horses and camels (and bicycles and motor cycles) come into their own in areas with the side without Air Superiority or any real air power. In the Mountains of Italy and Korea, Mules held they own, even while being viewed as obsolete in Northern Europe. In Afghanistan mules showed how useful they can be to an army without Air Superiority. If Iraq had wanted to actually defeat the US, it could have by using trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, mules, horses and camels (But most of the people of Iraq did NOT want to see the US lose, they also did not want to see the US win, but that is another story).

Thus the lack of horses and mules in the US Military makes perfect sense, while observing that mules and horse due have a place in military operations.

Due to the Surrender of Italy in 1943, the Italian Army dissolved. Some joined the Nazis and fought under Mussolini (once he was "Rescued" from his prison by the Nazis) or joined the allies against the Nazis. While the US and its allies had Air and Naval Superiority in Italy, the Germans (lead by a Luftwaffe General) did a serious of retreats and held various "Lines" of defense on the Italian Peninsula. This is due to the lack of roads in Italy and a desire to use landing craft elsewhere (i.e. D-Day on the North Coast of France, the August 1944 landings in Southern France as while as the various landings in the Western Pacific, many an LST and other landing craft went back and from from the Pacific to the Atlantic and back during WWII).

This lack of access to landing craft meant the US and its allies could NOT outflank the various German Lines by an Amphibious operation most of the time (Anzio was an exception to this rule, but shows the limits I am talking about, one of the reason it was a "Failure" was the need for those same landing craft elsewhere thus limited in time and duration that meant limited supplies and troops, thus the operation, was a strategic failure, the landing forces were small enough for the Germans to contain).

Do to the terrain and the lack of the ability to launch a serious of Amphibious operations due to the need for the Landing Crafts elsewhere, meant a lot of fighting along the Central Mountain Chain of Italy. The roads of Italy are easy to block and hard to outflank due to the Mountains in the middle of the Italian Peninsula. Thus to protect one's own flank AND to threaten the other side's flank meant moving troops along the various ridges. The problem was getting supplies to these troops fighting on the ridges. The answer was known to the US Army and they resorted to it. Fortunately, since the Italian Army had dissolved, Italian Mules and Mule Skinners were available and used, thus all that was needed to be transported from the US was the actual gear for the mules (and even that was at least partial provided by the Italians). Horses were also used (Through mostly by Scout units, again the Horses was obtained locally, the equipment, saddles etc, had to be shipped from the US, but that was a lot less then shipping actual mules and horses).

Thus, in Italy, Mules ended by being used extensively. So many were used that in the post war era the US had obtained so many mules and losing them in combat that the chief piece of "Equipment" the US ended up shipping to European Farmers as part of the Marshall plan was Mules. Italy, Greece and Turkey all had a severe shortage of Mules and it was hurting the farmers, and turning the farmers to embracing the communists.

When the US said it was phasing out its horses in 1947 (Mules were kept till 1957) AND said it would NO longer breed Horses and Mules starting in 1947 (Something the US Army had done since the 1700s) one of the reason was the need for these animals overseas as part of the Marshall Plan AND the Greece-Turkey plan. i.e. to give the appearance that the shipment of these animals was a civilian relief mission, not part of the MILITARY plans for operations in all three areas (along with the Balkans in between Italy and Greece). The US had had plans during WWII to ship mules and horses overseas (Something the US had done during WWI, even before the US declared war in April 1917) but with the ability to get those animals locally, shipping plans died out. The Sole exception was Burma, for the simple reason the US Army could NOT figure out how to supply the troops on the march without mules, and none were available locally (In India, the primary beast of burden was the Ox, not the horse or mule, what the Ox could do, a truck could do better, i.e. haul a wagon, thus the need for mules and horses could NOT be obtained from India, at least on the scale the US needed, so the US shipped Mules from the US to Burma, a six month trip for the Mules). As I stated above, once the US was done with these Mules we turned them over to the Nationalist Chinese Army, and one survived long enough to be captured by US forces in Korea, during the Koran War.

In the movie "The Story of GI Joe" filmed in 1945, which is a movie about Ernie Pyle, and his reports from North Africa and Italy, this use of Mules can be seen. The end of the movie has the Captain of the unit he had been following (played by Robert Mitchum) being carried, dead, on such a mule while the men walked by and saluted him. The movie is based on the stories Pyle told of his time with the troops. My Father also said it contained the closest thing to actual combat he ever saw in any movie.

Just a further comment on the use of Mules during WWII. The Russians made the greatest use of horses during WWII, but withdrew them once they were in Germany itself. Russian Horse tactics did not really apply to what the Russian refer to a "Mountainous" terrain, which is anything not as flat was the Steppes themselves, i.e anything West of Poland starting with Silesia. Thus the Russians withdraw of all but one Regiment of Cavalry in the Spring of 1945, the horses were withdrawn for use in Manchuria against the Japanese.

China also used horse mounted Cavalry on US Forces in Korea, but again, like Russian and pre-WWII US Cavalry tactics, the horses were used as transport only, actual fighting, unless the forces just bounced into each other at less then 100 yards, was on foot (If the forces meet each other at less then 100 yards, a quick Cavalry horse charge could be effective, but at longer distances the forces being attacked had enough time to get their weapons into action to knock off anyone on horseback). Horses could also provide a quick get a way, which is how the 26th US Cavalry forces used their horses, once it had delayed the Japanese Armor long enough for the rest of the US Army to retreat into Bataan. The Chinese in Korea seems to have used their cavalry in this matter, until the US decided NOT to go beyond the 39th parallel in 1951. Once that decision was made, it became a Trench Warfare situation where Armor, let along horses were of limited use.

Side note, Trench Warfare of WWI has become to be known in negative terms in the West, the problem is Trench Warfare occurs in areas where the stronger side, for various reasons, decided NOT to attack. In the case of WWI, Germany decided it could use its troops elsewhere, i.e Russia and the Balkans rather then force the issue in France (The losses would have been huge, even by WWI standards) for what the Germans considered small gains compared to the gains it was making in Russia after 1914.

In Korea, the US was by far the stronger side, but saw itself in a mess after the Chinese intervention. If the US would take North Korea, the Chinese would attack from Manchuria along a line TWICE as long as the 39th Parallel . If the US then attacked Manchuria, it would be viewed at attacking China, and the Communists would win the propaganda was with the Nationalists and unite the country against the US and the Nationalists on Taiwan (and find itself in the same mess the Japanese had been in the 1930s and 1940s). All along, Russia would be neutral, pointing out "American Aggression" and winning the propaganda war in Europe and Asia. As General Bradly said at the time "It was the Wrong War, with the Wrong Enemy, at the Wrong time". Thus the US decision to halt at the 39th Parallel and the acceptance of it as the border (The US did make some adjustments, moving the border north and south of the actual 39th Parallel to a more defensive line along 39th parallel, this was adopted as the truce line during the 1953 negotiations and remains the border to this day).

Yes, I did get carried away on this topic, but it shows how important animals were important as late as the 1950s for both Military and Farming purposes. The importance really started to decline only in the 1960s (The Red Chinese even had a photo with a Cavalry man shooting his rifle on Horseback with an Atomic bomb going on behind him, the purpose of the photo was to show that BOTH were still important when China tested its first Atomic Bomb in 1964), but animals (Horses) were used by the Rhodesia Government against the Native movement against the Rhodesian Government in the 1980s. The key transport of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war was the bicycle (Using Bikes even to haul items up to one ton per bike, in areas where, due to US Bombing, trucks could no longer travel). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, who tended to be Hindu) Guerrillas in Sri Lanka used the Bicycle during they long war with the Buddhist Government of Sri Lanka (Yes, both sides did NOT identify themselves as religious groups, but that is how the two sides broke down, along ethnic AND Religious lines, this break down explains India's support for the LTTE, which only ended with the expansion of the US war on Terror after 9/11, i.e. the LTTE lost they main source of weapons and ammunition when India decided it was better to withdraw all support to the LTTE, in the hope the US would continue to off shore call services to India). At the same time as India withdrew support of the LTTE, Sri Lanka Government offered reforms that the LTTE had considered in the past, to the Tamil People, as an offer to the Tamil TO end their support of the LTTE. The support From India explains why the LTTE survived as long as it did, and the withdraw of that support AND the offer to the Tamil of a partial solutions to their problems, explains why the LTTE collapsed so quickly in 2009 but that is beside the main thrust of this report, which is the use on non-motorized transport devices (in this case bicycles) in combat today.

The above is to show that you can contest the power of the US with the use of NON-motor vehicles, but to do so effectively is to understand the limitations of those devices AND how those devices can defeat the US Forces. First, is you must understand that the US will NEVER engage you unless they have complete superiorly over you. If you can contest that superiority, it increases the chances of no US involvement (Thus the US NEVER attacked Eastern Europe, due to US fears of the Soviet Red Army).

On the other hand, if you can show that the US Superiority is meaningless, for the US can NOT stop you from going from one part of the Area in question to another, you have already undermined the US Superiority. In Vietnam, for example, the US could go anywhere it wanted to go, but so could any Viet Cong, through the Viet Cong would have to hide his weapons constantly, while the US could have its weapons out all the time. The ability of the Viet Cong was due to the support the Viet Cong had among the Vietnamese people of South Vietnam. The purpose of the US War in Vietnam should have been to get the people of Vietnam to support the Government of South Vietnam, but that meant land reform that out allies in the South Vietnamese Government opposes (For most of them were the landlords of the lands of Vietnam and the thus the people who would lose wealth in any land reform). Thus, it was clear by 1964 the land reform needed was NOT going to be done and thus the War was lost, on the other hand the losing of the war would have caused all types of political problems for whoever was President of the US, thus the purpose of the US Intervention was to delay the fall of South Vietnam until someone else was President. This was the Policy of JFK, LBJ and Nixon. Vietnam fell under Ford, over Ford's objection due to the act of Congress to let Vietnam go.

I bring up Vietnam to show you that the US has limits on its use of power. If the other side can win the Political Battle over the hearts and minds of its people, it can defeat the US, may take years, but the US can be defeated. This is what the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan, it is NOT taking on the US one on one for the Taliban knowns it will lose such a fight, but the Taliban will continue to support what the people of Afghanistan wants, including HOW its children are educated. I bring this up due to the recent shooting of the 14 year old afghan girl for going to School. If the Taliban was in Charge in Afghanistan, the US could pressure it to make sure such girls go to school, but right now the US is FIGHTING the Taliban and the Taliban needs to maintain its support from the people of Afghanistan, thus if the locals oppose such education, so will the Taliban and the US can do little or nothing about it. The US options are limited, it can support what the locals want, which is support the Taliban in this case, or it can oppose what the locals want, and all that does is builds support for the Taliban among those locals (Please no comments about the need for this woman to be educated, that is NOT the issue, the issue is how does the US wins support from the locals, that is where the US and the Taliban will win or lose this war and right now the US is losing it for the US is losing the support of the locals). Without this support the Taliban will be quickly defeated, with this support the Taliban can fight till the US withdraws. Thus killing off the Taliban is NOT the real object of this war, but winning the support of the locals from the Taliban. So far I have NOT seen any real US efforts to do so, thus the US is losing the war in Afghanistan to a truck and horse mounted enemy.

My point is even today, low tech can beat high tech, if the people support the side fighting with low tech. Thus any such war, military options are of minor concern, supply and support are larger factors. Supply and Support can be done by bicycle, horse, mules, ox, motorcycle or truck. Sometimes all six plus on foot, sometimes by one of the six (and sometimes by on foot alone). Thus, such "unconventional" tactics are used when one side has the support of the people and the other side does not, but that side has greater material support from its own elites or from someone else (i.e. the US in Afghanistan). The low tech can overthrow the strong side by slowing wearing it down, till it either has to cut a deal with the Guerrillas (as was the case in most of Central America in the 1980s) or it collapses (as Somoza's rule of Nicaragua did in 1979). That is what is happening in Afghanistan, the Taliban is slowly wearing the US out, but the US is NOT ready to cut a deal turning Afghanistan back over to the Taliban. Thus it will fester till the US decides enough is enough OR the Taliban loses support of the people of its area of Afghanistan (The Taliban does NOT have support from every group in Afghanistan, At least one group is supported by Iran and thus supports Iran, other groups get support from the other Republics of Central Asia and Russia, this was the situation before the US intervention and Afghanistan may return to that situation once the US withdraws). The Key is the support of the Taliban from the Taliban main area of Support, from among the Pashtun of the Mountains separating Afghanistan from Pakistan. From all reports the support of the Taliban is growing in this area due to US attacks, which is intended to destroy any Taliban Leadership, but is also being used by the Taliban as a recruiting tool. The US seems to have no designs on how to get the Pashtun to support the Afghan Government and withdraw from support of the Taliban and until the US comes up with an effective plan, the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan, and maybe even winning the war in Pakistan.

Sorry, about the diversion to the Afghan war, but is also shows the complications of any military action, i.e. it is NEVER in isolation and can have affects the people who plan and do the military action may never considered as a result of that military action. This includes the use of various means of transport, for what is used as transport often depends on what is available and what is usable (i.e. one does NOT use planes, if the other side can shoot them down at will). US has used Horse, Mules, trucks, planes, railroads and ships as its means of transport for its military operations (I have seen some troops train with Llamas and Camels but I have NOT heard of any actual use in Combat of either animal since the Civil War, camels were used in the 1850s, but only as an experiment that ended with the onset of the Civil War). Supply is based on transport AND where one's support is based. You need less transport if you have local support, but more transport as you get away from your base of support OR as you move away from where you can get supplies. Thus the US concentration on Ships, Trucks and Planes, and other groups emphasis on oxen, horses, mules, bikes and trucks. Supply is often more important than any other factor in a war, but often ignored for it does not have the glamor of actual front lone combat. In a war, transport can win or lose the war before the first bullet is ever fired and for that reason is often more important then how many weapons a side has. Thus my comments on mules and horses, they limitations and they advantages. If you understand those pluses and minuses it can help one side or the other win a war, if one side does NOT understand those pluses and minuses, it can lead to defeat. Hopefully the leaders of any side understand the support and supply they can depend on, if not you will see a debacle as the side that did NOT understand the problems of supply and support does things that can NOT be supported by its source of Supply and Support.

People have comprehension problems!

the majority of Americans cannot understand it. Welcome to DU.

Also, a hearty and very warm welcome to DU. I hope you will be able to enjoy your time on here.......

Fuck this jealous asshole, who will never be nothing than a has been.

Allen West, A-Hole-In-Chief? Umm?

Isn't that a cardinal sin among Florida Republicans?

Obama said "fewer", dumbass.

They don't speak english down here

Not all of we Southerners are like that..And my English is fine, not great but ok enough...

A nice Palmetto bug infestation of his car wouldn't be out of order either.

soldier killed in your bastard wars.

Indeed, sadly...they are still in use.

who will go "Duh, yeah, duh

who had to retire after being charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ for using illegal interrogation techniques on a prisoner in Iraq.

And as always, they missed the point.

...with a mounting system on them?

We're a long way from the sole-purpose 18-inchers that were on Civil War muskets.

fighting tomahawk is still issued in the Army and has been used to kill in Iraq.

While bayonets have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the last actual Bayonet charge was in 2004 in Afghanistan.

Challenge to Allen West: find a unit of the US Army that maintains horses or mules in peacetime and is not a ceremonial unit.(There isn't one.) The reality of horses is they have to be maintained daily, and vehicles do not if they aren't in use.

Second challenge: Find another light bird colonel who received an Article 15 for war crimes.

that his comments are hillbilly speak for "Romney got his ass handed to him"

Poland, these guys on horseback with lances charged the ranks of German tanks.

bayonets and tomahawks are all still used in the US Army, I don't know if we still use bows and arrows though, but we did in Vietnam, and some countries still do.

The key words here are "fewer" (which Obama used) and "none." (Which right-wingers say.)

A bayonet charge in WW1 became suicidal.
It's never got any better.

more people in on this stuff, many people are amazed that we still fight with tomahawks.

As far as the bayonet, it isn't "suicidal", it has been used successfully many times since WWI, as I mentioned it was used to win a battle in 2004 by a British unit, and to the individual soldier, it has been used frequently.

"The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan."

"In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him. In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011."

The "Spirit of the Bayonet" was the doctrine the French Army had adopted prior to WWI, it said it was the charge that won battles and thus when it doubt attack. One writers cited had commented that he had seen many bayonet wounds on died Russian during the Crimean war and that was the result of the Bayonet being the decisive weapon of battle (He ended up died in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871).

Yes, the doctrine founded had long been dead, but it was the doctrine adopted by at least the 1890 by the French Army. In the Summer of 1914, the French were being pushed back by the Germans, but in most engagements it was the French who did the attack (and the Germans then fired from defensive positions and won the battle).

In many ways, the "Spirit of the Bayonet" is a doctrine that attack over come all.

Now, if you look at older time period (i.e. pre US Civil War) the bayonet was the Queen of Battle for with it an infantryman could advance and attack. Even today, if you want to shoot a weapon, you have to stop and shoot, thus the bayonet is the only true offensive weapon. Bayonet attacks were common prior to the US Civil War, the bayonet Charges that took two British Bastions during the Siege of Yorktown, meant the British position was untenable and they had to surrender. Earlier the Pike and its ability to operate in all types of weather was viewed like the later Bayonet and offensive weapon to win a battle.

The Percussion cap and its ability to fire over 3000 rounds before a Misfire made Rifles the dominate weapon on the battlefield. Earlier Flintlocks misfired as often as one out of six fires (Putting the weapon out of actions, for several minutes in case of rifles). Thus till the percussion cap, armies preferred smooth-bore muskets, for it was easy to get them back in action if a misfire occurred. With the Percussion cap, rifles could be adopted and ranges extended from 100 yards to 1000 yards against group targets.

Just a comment of where the Spirit of the Bayonet came from and why.

basic training, August, 1966:
Question during bayonet training:
What is the spirit of the bayonet?
Answer yelled with gusto, "To kill."
Yes we were trained killers.

But I was Field Artillery at Ft Sill about 15 years later.

Started as 82C20, Artillery Survey, euphemism for forward observer. Changed MOS to 13 E20, FDC in Vietnam. They were using more air observers than ground observers. Went into the field with a 105 towed battery for four months until I snapped. Got sent into a base camp just in time for Tet.

I also taught them if you're crawling under bushes looking for the enemy yourself instead of telling the infantry which bush to crawl under, the infantry units that are relying on you to find the enemy are going to die.

after seeing miniature models of them in a Flames of War (WWII miniatures game) rule book. Kind of surprised me, to be honest.

People tend to forget how effective Cavalry was in WWII. Heinz Guderiande made a report that one of his Mechanized Infantry Units had to retreat due to an attack by Polish Cavalry. Furthermore Polish Cavalry of WWII followed Cossack and American Cavalry tradition, the horse was to get the trooper to the battlefield, then you fought on foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry

When used effectively it could be decisive. The US 26th cavalry regiment engagement of two Japanese Armor Regiments in the early days of the 1942 Philippines Campaign was the key to MacArthur's withdraw to the Bataan Peninsula. The whole maneuver shocked the Japanese, not that someone thought it could be done, but MacArthur did it.

Russian Cavalry was noted for beating German forces to the next river whenever the Germans retreated from 1942 to 1945. For the simple reason, the horsemen could out run the German supply trains and get to the river first and make a crossing and hold that crossing till the rest of the Russian army arrived.

The units the Russian first pulled out of Germany to fight the Japanese was its Cavalry units, to act as infantry support to its Armor attack on Manchuria in August 1945, an attack Stalin promised to Roosevelt at Yalta and the US tried to down play with its Atomic Bombing (I will NOT go into the argument that the Speed of the Russian Advance in Manchuria was the reason the Japanese surrendered NOT the Atomic Bombings).

German retained one SS Cavalry regiment till it vacate the pipette marshes, for no other unit could operate in that swamp, again from 1941-1944.

Patton made the comment had the 5th US Cavalry unit been deployed to Africa and Sicily with horses, not a single German would have escaped, for it was capable of operating in areas without roads (which was the case in Tunisia and Sicily). The only reason the US did NOT field a horse Cavalry division was it was determined that such a division would take up as much space as an Armor Division, and the US had several limitations as to how many divisions it could transport and support in Europe and the Pacific (the US Navy reported to the Army, it could transport and support only 100 divisions, thus the US fielded 90 Army and 10 Marine Divisions).

Than comedy central repeats.
Every 4 years i pop my head up for a good laugh.
Faux new pushing their "bias alert" opinions, this coming from a network that believes its a constitutional right to lie to the viewers.
Watching the right wing self implode? $200 million
Watching Obama in power for the next 4 years? priceless.

lol

Can't unring this bell.

don't know how many times i posted the actual quote...

so sick of the stupidity of so many people.

and tell me this idiot is not going to be re-elected.

"...we have a president who does not understand the full capabilities and capacities and what we do in the United States military."

It is obvious to me you don't either, since your ass was kicked out of the military.

Remakes everything he hears and makes up everything he says.

Do some people have hearing difficulties ?

Do some people have reading comprehension problems ?

The key word is FEWER.

The president did not say horses and bayonets are not used.

He CLEARLY stated FEWER are used.

Somebody ask Allen West if he wants us to spend MORE on horses and bayonets.

you're citing stuff from over 10 years ago.

I think someone who was drummed out of the corp over charges of exceeding his authority and torture should keep his damn mouth shut--he has nothing to add to anything.

Isn't it about time that Mr. West gets on his horse and rides off the nearest cliff? Anyone that doesn't understand the difference between "fewer and none" doesn't need to comment.

There will probably never be a shortage of bayonets but their use as a primary offensive or defensive weapon has declined significantly since the civil war. It is the goal of every commander that his soldiers wil never have to rely on the bayonet for survival in combat because he knows it is only after you run out of bullets that it is used on the rifle itself. In fact during Vietnam , it was hidden from the public that soldiers killed enemy with bayonets even as they died bravely due to lack of ammunition. To rely on the bayonet is generally to admit defeat and lack of provisioning or resupply. No commander, West included, wants to admit his troops rely to any significant extent on the bayonet, no matter his bull. I suspect I have fought the enemy at close quarters without access to bullets and by luck and or the grace of God lived. Did West do that? Of course not .He is just another big talking officer who never really faced the enemy up close and selected his knowledge fronm the stories and writings of others who did not either.
As far as rthe horse, Whie I praise the success of our soldiers and those of our Afghan allies in using the available assets, I would like to point out these horses were not part of the regular Army inventory but acquired on site. I would also point out we do not stock many horses or even many mules to my knowledge.
The statement was clearly intended to show that the number of ships needed depended on technology and type of ship, which is a much more valid observation than total number of ships prior to 1918 in the Navy. Cognitive dissonance has become the religion of republican leaders every where.
West lies and misleads those who know little about true combat. He took an oath to defend this Nation and he is forgetting his oath when he lies about the true needs of the military to cover his unaware candidate.
No wonder they threw West out.

Army units deploying to Afghanistan since 2011 have not been issued bayonets.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/how-many-bayonets-does-the-u-s-have-quite-a-few/

I fondly remember bayonet training. "what makes the grass grow green?"

and have probably never had any need of hand to hand combat training with a fixed bayonet.

and your live expectancy just plummeted!

and if they don't like it, they should have joined the Army. Back to the actual point, the last thing we need are more civilized warfighters from any branch. Bayonet training builds a warrior's fighting spirit and mindset as much as his fighting skill set. Real soldiers should be mentally, physically, and spiritually prepared to fix bayonets and wade into melee when their ammo runs out and I find it more than a little disconcerting that they aren't.

Since the debate Republicans have been using the "we still use horses and bayonets straw man. It does not matter that the American military still uses horses and bayonets. President Obama did not say the American military no longer uses horses and bayonets he said the American military uses fewer horses and bayonets than in 1916. I am pretty sure that the American military uses fewer horses and bayonets now than it did in 1916.

Yes, members of the Special Forces used horses in Afghanistan. However, did those individuals even make up 1% of the military personnel in Afghanistan? The vast majority of military personnel in Afghanistan used tanks, Humvees, and other types of vehicles.

Horses are no longer paid to go to war. Today horses are found locally to use temporarily. We do not own them unless we get them killed. What a doofus West is.

Instead of insulting the Commander in Chief.

I hope that the Republicans make a really big deal out of this. The mashups are hilarious.

Holy cow...the President said..." fewer horses and bayonets than it did in 1916." West is a total idiot...who apperently does not have a clue> The people who voted for him are just as deranged as he is

The FEW or the ER?

guy is a huge joke and I'm not laughing. In slavery times the field hands had a name for him. I've got one also, but I don't want to get in trouble on this site for casting aspersions on someone, I feel, deserves it.

Prepare the nuclear missles!

or obsolete and modern. In 1916 use of horses and bayonets were standard and routine. Now they are neither.

geesh

The President didn't say that we don't have horses and bayonets in the military today.

Seriously?



I kept reading it and I know it's real but my mind kept seeing it as an Onion article.

Or is West lying like a dumb fuck artillery officer.

I was in the infantry for 10 years, 2 combat tours, and the only time we fixed bayonets was for parades.

Not "no horses and bayonets".

IIRC, the military uses horses in Afghanistan to get around in rough, mountainous terrain where trucks and tanks don't work well.

Obama didn't say we don't use bayonets anymore, like West clearly implied.

West is a lying dumbfuck retired artillery officer.

Did you have a point?

the ability to know a crazy motherfucker when they see one, and to throw his crazy motherfucking ass out of the Army.

eom

If not, I don't know the problem. I wasn't in infantry or special forces but I don't recall soldiers training or riding horses around Ft. Lewis or Iraq(not saying they don't use horses, just that it has to be very rare). The only time I trained with a bayonet was in basic training.

It's on page 3: no pistol-point interrogations.