Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "Cavalry in WW2 was more useful than we think" video.

  1. Against armour not much, but they carried the sword and used it, just against infantry. At several points the Soviets would break up and scatter German infantry with tanks, then send in a cavalry charge with swords to cut them down before they could reorganize or redeploy. Cavalry were a fair pain, they could act as mobile reserves, a screening force, a complication in retreating, quite often a complication in attacking if they counterattacked with your troops in open ground in the advance. They could infiltrate behind the lines, cross difficult terrain at speed or just straight up charge you and put how prepared your positions actually were to the test. Not a fun unit but they did face the attrition of any vanguard unit if deployed, if you were screamish about casualties however they made excellent policing and anti-partisan units.
    19
  2. During the Ukraine war I've thought is a mistake for the Russians to not have cavalry, many of their offensives have been road-bound and their logistics could do with practically any increase in capacity which isn't just an increase in traffic. The Soviets likely did a great deal of damage to Russian security but wiping out the Cossacks, such a group was taylor for to Russia's security needs, being cheap, numerous, moble and robust. People also seem to forget that cavalry are a dismount away from light infantry, they can rush breakthroughs and then dig in.
    2
  3. In general the Soviets did immense damage, breaking up the Russian Empire, destroying the birth rate, killing many of the most valuable people and persecuting many useful regional ethnicities. But with the Cossacks in particular they wiped out an autonomous border force, able both to defend themselves and wage constant low level conflict. It was also an immense reserve of military power, especially irregular horsemen. Now peripheral areas must be controlled through patronage networks and 'peace keeping forces' from the military. On top of this the land is very lightly settled and in such regions there is a problem with the draining off of ethic Russians to the Urbanised interior. It seems like the government has backtracked and is trying to use cossack identity as some form of nationalist skinsuit, the issue is that without the same social structure, legal status and ingrained culture it isn't really the same thing, but maybe that will change. Currently there isn't the logistical capability for the mass breeding, training, deployment and feeding of horses, but it would probably be worth it, horses don't need imported technology to be produced or maintained, cavalry work well as a reserve, likewise deploying them on the border would be threatening and force mass deployment of barbed wire. The downside is high casualties, this was also the case historically, they are like paratroopers, due to being a spearhead force and operating behind enemy lines they take very high casualties. Whether it is affordable depends on use, priorities and soft factors like birth rates (which throughout most of Russian history more than made up for high casualties in war) and the capacity in terms of horses and trained men. If the Cossacks had not been annihilated there would have been 300k or more cav to deal with and the early offences would have gone much better if the sides of the roads had been screened and it had been a matter of pockets rather than seas of resistance. But then without the revolution Russia would be a totally different country, and one much stronger in many other ways as well. The focus on Russian policy makers should probably be on winning the war, improving the economy and making more Russians, but a test unit at least would be interesting.
    2
  4. As the others are saying it's a matter of the horse, western military observers often specifically stated that cossack horses were extremely hardy and that certain ponies used seemed to live on practically nothing while being worked extremely hard. Making assumptions about capability would probably increase the enemy's due to being wrong. Draft horses, racing horses and heavy cavalry horses are extremely hungry and need different levels treatment, they they are good at their specialised roles. Cossacks were noted to sit in the saddle in a way that allowed them to cover much greater distance than regular cavalry. Likewise fuel relies on a supply line, as it was less freely available at the time, fodder for horses on the other hand was something every village would have, every today a grain shortage is far more unusual and a far more serious matter than a fuel one, stables are probably the thing in most short supply.
    2
  5. Horses were a vital part of logistics, just not the main one (trains).
    1
  6.  @canadianeh4792  That depends on conditions, but certainly cavalry viability has been undersold by the narrative of technological progress, even 400 years ago they faced many of the limitations of a century ago, their decline just made for a good story and something for the papers to talk about.
    1