Lads, I'm in the middle of a heated argument in another forum, about the use of French horsed cavalry against the Blitzkrieg in May 1940. I'm convinced, through this information: dlm The Division Légère de Cavalerie Traductor de Google Bois de Sommauthe – Oches – Mont Damion / 2° DLC | Ardennes 1940 à ceux qui ont résisté (in French, but if needed, can be read using Wiki translation; Google Translate doesn't seem to work with the site) that there must have been at least minor encounters between French horsed cavalry and German armour (even if in the form of reconnaissance vehicles only), but have found such resistance to the thought (maybe thinking of Polish-style Lancer charges), that I decided to ask the experts to reinforce me, or prove me wrong once and for all, so I can go back to that discussion either to apologize or to unleash my secret weapon... Help, please. P.D. It is also a fascinating subject to dwell into
Here is an article describing the actions on the French cavalry in 1940. In French of course https://www.cairn.info/revue-guerres-mondiales-et-conflits-contemporains-2007-1-page-47.htm
Thanks, mate, it is the one I include as a Google translation (3rd link from the top), and it does include some, IMHO, conclusive paragraphs regarding horse deployment under the title "French cavalry fighting: the limits of adaptability". However, lads on the other forum just don't seem to be easily convinced, as on reading this one, say that "It is proof of armoured car deployment, with the horses relegated to pulling QM stuff"!!!!! Aaaahhh, the niceties of war history debating...
Missed the link, my bad. I’m travelling at the moment but will see if I have anything in the library when I get home
Lad, Internet arguments become "heated" when one poster decides to tell others what he/she has "convinced" him/herself of or what he/she believes "must have been" is somehow historical fact. Clearly your request here is for somebody else to provide the evidence or "secret weapon" which you are you lacking. Why are you getting into a "heated argument" without any supporting evidence? Why not just offer up your thoughts and leave it at that? Why are you so desperate to convince others that your personal opinion is historical fact? Perhaps you should base your arguments on historical evidence rather than wishful thinking. The French army in May 1940 still consisted of a number of horsed units. That is an established historical reality. The British did too. Thus it is quite easy to prove that horse mounted units were to be found in a number of locations along the battlefront. However, what you seem determed to prove to others is somewhat more complex and seems to lie somewhere between horse charges on armour but not horse charges on armour the Polish way. All very confusing.
Mate, trying to prove the fighting worthiness of horsed cavalry in the mechanized era, facts and not loose thoughts say (included links are the proof) that it was deployed in 1940 against the Germans in combat roles, not just pulling QM hardware. In Russia, in the Philippines, in China, even in North Africa, horses played a gallant and more-often-than-not useful combat role. Problem is, as this is a matter of contributing historical accuracy rather than of a prevalent opinion, all sources mention in-battle maneuvers by said units, but none refers to specific combat actions, be them a patrol clash or a suicide brigade charge against armour; something that would prove the point once and for all, like the Savoia charge and cossack horseback recce do for the Eastern Front, the 26th Cavalry action at Morong does for the Philippine TO, etc. Besides, I don't like losing
Hmm you are far away from Sumatra mate Your question made me curious concerning Belgian/Dutch Cavalry. I am sure the Dutch have no such encounters and all their reports are online o easy to find out. Have you tried the French archives concerning Cavalry Good luck
I know, mate, members of the European KNIL loved doing their thing on two wheels... I have been looking all over, but all I have got so far are references to brigade-sized maneuvers (in battle, I must point out), nothing especific regarding actual fights. If these maneuvers happened while encountering-retreating from the Panzer spearheads in the Ardennes, there must have been combat involving cavalry and, at least, mechanized Wehrmacht (or even SS) units.
So I pulled out my copy of the Cavalry of World War II by Janusz Piekalkiewicz. Not a lot on the DLC but their actions are covered on pages 27-33. The DLC were used as rearguards and mostly fought as mounted infantry: "All the other bridges from Donchery to Rumilly ... were blown apart after the last horsemen of the rearguard of the 5e Division Legere de Calvarie (DLC) had crossed over." French cavalry also saw action around Aumale and Hangest (6e regiment de Dragons fighting as dismounted infantry June 5th) .Encounters with German armour did occur: the first DLC met them at Dinant. 2e DLC fought with the 1ere Division Infantrie Coloniale at Stonne around the 13th of May: "infantry and cavalry were fighting in superb co-ordination. The cavalrymen did not hesitate to sacrifice their own lives to cover the withdrawal of the riflemen. The spontaneous comradeship was marvellous" [Lt. Dalat 2eDLC quoted on page 28 of Pieklakiwicz] Most actions seem to be rearguards or meeting actions with the French cavalry in almost continuous retreat, suffering large losses, particularly from air attacks.
Excellent stuff, mate! Thanks a lot. Now, can I ask you a favour? Is it possible for you to scan/post page 28 (and maybe a couple more, if need be) where some specific actions are mentioned? No problem if you can't scan, though. I knew combat happened, and that there had to be some specific reference/s, no matter how small.
Well mate out of curiousity I checked 6e Regiment de Dragons and found a minor note on 1940 6e régiment de dragons (France) — Wikipédia: "Du côté du sport, même si l'escrime n'est pas en reste, c'est notamment en hippisme que les héritiers des dragons de la Reine se montrent des plus habiles. Ces résultats sont probablement pour quelque chose dans le fait que le 6e dragons reste un régiment à cheval alors que d'autres deviennent portés ou mécanisés. Ce sera d'ailleurs le seul régiment de dragons à rester complètement à cheval jusqu'en 1940." or in plain English "On the side of sport, even if fencing is not outdone, it is notably in horse riding that the heirs of the Queen's dragons are most skilful. These results are probably due to the fact that the 6th dragons remain a regiment on horseback while others become worn or mechanized. It will be the only regiment of dragons to remain completely on horseback until 1940." So unfortunately it look to me as you like you better prepare a hasty retreat to the jungle
There are plenty of regiment (ie. battalion) level accounts out there. You can even find snippets in British war diaries given that 2.DLC, 3.DLC and 5.DLC worked closely with British forces south of the Somme in June 1940. At various times elements or the whole of 1st Armoured Division came under one or other of those three DLC commands. What appears to be a rather disappointing turn is that some are failing to grasp the 'meaning' and 'relevance' of some of the words being presented to them. Note the following from Orwell 1984 "The DLC were used as rearguards and mostly fought as mounted infantry". I'll repeat that: mounted infantry. Mounted infantry was the role of the French 'cavalry' come 1940. Had been for some time. Instead of walking themselves, or taking a bus or a truck, they rode on horseback to and around the battlefront - or away from it. But they fought their battles as infantry on Shanks' pony! The horses carried their heavy machine guns and pulled their anti-tank guns too. Given the quantity of information out there, and a failure to find what one wants, perhaps it is time to recognise that what one believes "must" have occured, perhaps didn't. Wishful thinking and a determination to win arguments is an extremely poor substitute for historical evidence.
Well, mate, as I wrote in the first post, it doesn't matter if I have to ask for a truce, as long as it is corroborated information that tells me to. However, I estimate I can still support my point (the one that originated this whole thing) with cavalrymen coming and going to the battlefield on horseback, but then fighting on foot, which was my proposition from the beginning, as opposed to an all-mechanized "cavalry" defense of the Ardennes. I thought that mentioning "Polish-style charges" as the main argument of my debate counterpart would illustrate my point of view and his motorized one, but I looks like it wasn't enough; my mistake.
When the 2.DLC, 3.DLC and 5.DLC arrived in the Abbeville-Amiens area in late May, their horsed units were essentially complete whereas the mexhanized units were showing significant battle losses. Perhaps that is an indicator of the relative extent that the horsed v mechanized units saw action earlier in Belgium for those three formations.
