Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kathleen's avatar

You have to train horses to operate in combat zones - it's what horse people call being "bomb proof" - they won't startle or bolt at loud noises, explosions, etc. And I'll suspect that they probably favoured some cross of draught and "other" for the musculature and bone heft. But surely, once the artillery was in place, they removed the horses back to a distance away and picketed them or something?

But mules, I'd think, would be the preferred for a couple of reasons: they're tougher, stronger, and smarter - much smarter than a horse, really. They aren't "stubborn" - that's a myth - they have good reasoning ability and they like to do their own thinking. You just have to treat them reasonably and explain it to them and partner with them - a mule will do anything for you if you treat them with respect and kindness. Also, they can function on leaner rations and go longer on them than a horse can, so in that respect they're easier keepers and they don't colic nearly as easily or as often.

So why such a large herd of horses rather than mules, when mules are easier and cheaper to keep?

Expand full comment
Al Bonnyman's avatar

The US Army used mules and pack artillery in northern Burma in World War II, as did the US-equipped Chine Army in Burma. I think the US may also used mules and pack artillery in New Guinea.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts