This study analyzes the actions of the Australian Light Horse in the Middle East campaign during WWI. It shows the basis for their approach-to war and how these techniques were successful by adapting to the circumstances of the situation. The Australian Light Horse demonstrated the traits of initiative and flexibility during the campaign in Egypt and Palestine by changing their modus operendii from mounted infantry to cavalry.
Joe
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.e...tern%20front%22
Full Version: Australian Light Horse:
Great War Forum > The War On Other Fronts > Away From The Western Front > Middle East & North Africa
Joe, Thanks for all these.
Cheers
Kim
Cheers
Kim
Hi Kim, just glad I could help.
Joe
Joe
Mate,
Its an interesting bit, but it sufferes from the idea that all aussie Cavalry were trained as Mounted Infantry.
Aussie Cavalry were never trained as Mounted Infantry but as Mounted Rifles.
That means they were trained to fight on horse back but were capable of also fighting on foot by using the rifle as the main weapon and not the Sword or lance as in other western Cavalries.
They were never trained to fight as European Cavalry in shock action only to use the horse for scouting and fighting.
The switch late in the war from Mounted Rifles to the use of the sword (in some but not all Regts) for shock action was a natural progresion of the use of such trained horseman who had been trained to use the bayonet instead of a sword.
S.B
Its an interesting bit, but it sufferes from the idea that all aussie Cavalry were trained as Mounted Infantry.
Aussie Cavalry were never trained as Mounted Infantry but as Mounted Rifles.
That means they were trained to fight on horse back but were capable of also fighting on foot by using the rifle as the main weapon and not the Sword or lance as in other western Cavalries.
They were never trained to fight as European Cavalry in shock action only to use the horse for scouting and fighting.
The switch late in the war from Mounted Rifles to the use of the sword (in some but not all Regts) for shock action was a natural progresion of the use of such trained horseman who had been trained to use the bayonet instead of a sword.
S.B
Good evening SB. I am at a lost here because you know a lot more on this than me, so I'm taking your word for it. Also, remember that this thesis was written by an American officer and,perhaps, not up to speed on the subtle differences between Mounted Infantry and Cavalry........I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for the comments, appreciated.
Joe
Thanks for the comments, appreciated.
Joe
Mate,
No worries even some aussie books still say we were Mounted Infanty, so a Yank would follow the known litrature.
Its a nice study and of interest to those of us who follow this area.
Thanks for posting these little bits even if some of there research for them is poorly understood.
Like the paper of the Charge at Beersheba has a number of factual errors.
Cheers
S.B
No worries even some aussie books still say we were Mounted Infanty, so a Yank would follow the known litrature.
Its a nice study and of interest to those of us who follow this area.
Thanks for posting these little bits even if some of there research for them is poorly understood.
Like the paper of the Charge at Beersheba has a number of factual errors.
Cheers
S.B
G'day SB and thanks for the comments, they are always appreciated.
Joe
Joe
Steve
Mate, the problem of misunderstanding is home grown. My SIL in Brisbane is serving with the 2nd/14th (QMI) Cavalry, a combination which details the confusion. The territorial title is Queensland Mounted Infantry and yet it is a cavalry unit. Under the QMI name it served in the Boer War in roles which included that of Mounted Infantry and Mounted Rifles. After federation the regiments of the QMI became Light Horse which then altered their mission while still retaining the original name in the Territorial title.
Then we go south of the border to NSW where there was a combination of cavalry with the NSW Lancers and mounted rifles with the NSW Mounted Rifles, both of whom served under these names during the Boer War and still retain the Territorial titles today. To confuse matters there was also the 1st Australian Horse which was a purpose fusion of cavalry and light horse roles.
Go south again and we have the Victorian Mounted Rifles and the South Australia Mounted Rifles. Further south and we have the Tasmanian Mounted Infantry and to the west, West Australian Mounted Infantry, a unit in which you served. As you would appreciate, it was not a mounted infantry unit but cavalry.
What I'm getting at is that if we in Oz cannot get some sort of uniformity in the names, or the names are more out of character to the unit which it describes, then what hope is it for the poor Seppos who struggle to understand the Australian vernacular let alone the flourish of different names. These guys are just doing a final assignment for assessment so they are more interested in finishing the course and getting a pass rather than gaining an understanding of Australian military history. I have read quite a few of these papers and while they are a nice cultural curiosity, they carry little historical value. For me they provide a valuable heads up to ensure everything is carefully explained so that these mistakes in understanding do not occur in a global market. After all, it is too easy to become insular and rah rah when writing about one's own history. Our cultural underpinnings may be our starting point but for others, these pre-requisites are not even in the ball park. So these essays provide tremendous value to getting the commentary right.
Cheers
Bill
Mate, the problem of misunderstanding is home grown. My SIL in Brisbane is serving with the 2nd/14th (QMI) Cavalry, a combination which details the confusion. The territorial title is Queensland Mounted Infantry and yet it is a cavalry unit. Under the QMI name it served in the Boer War in roles which included that of Mounted Infantry and Mounted Rifles. After federation the regiments of the QMI became Light Horse which then altered their mission while still retaining the original name in the Territorial title.
Then we go south of the border to NSW where there was a combination of cavalry with the NSW Lancers and mounted rifles with the NSW Mounted Rifles, both of whom served under these names during the Boer War and still retain the Territorial titles today. To confuse matters there was also the 1st Australian Horse which was a purpose fusion of cavalry and light horse roles.
Go south again and we have the Victorian Mounted Rifles and the South Australia Mounted Rifles. Further south and we have the Tasmanian Mounted Infantry and to the west, West Australian Mounted Infantry, a unit in which you served. As you would appreciate, it was not a mounted infantry unit but cavalry.
What I'm getting at is that if we in Oz cannot get some sort of uniformity in the names, or the names are more out of character to the unit which it describes, then what hope is it for the poor Seppos who struggle to understand the Australian vernacular let alone the flourish of different names. These guys are just doing a final assignment for assessment so they are more interested in finishing the course and getting a pass rather than gaining an understanding of Australian military history. I have read quite a few of these papers and while they are a nice cultural curiosity, they carry little historical value. For me they provide a valuable heads up to ensure everything is carefully explained so that these mistakes in understanding do not occur in a global market. After all, it is too easy to become insular and rah rah when writing about one's own history. Our cultural underpinnings may be our starting point but for others, these pre-requisites are not even in the ball park. So these essays provide tremendous value to getting the commentary right.
Cheers
Bill
Thanks Bill........think after that I'll go for a beer..... 
Joe
Joe
Joe,
Just to add to Steve's comment that the Light Horse were trained as Mounted Rifles rather than Mounted Infantry.
The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History has a couple of articles on the differences between Mounted Infantry and Mounted Rifles and that the Light Horse was organised as mounted rifles, not mounted infantry. The difference was a moot point in the actual role of the units as both terms are frequently used interchangeably without regard to the technical differences. According to the book, the two terms denoted different types of mounted troops, particularly after Federation (1901). The Oxford Companion reflects contemporary views I gleaned many years ago from reading articles in professional journals written by militia officers in the period 1890 -1910.
Mounted Rifles was a title applied to mounted troops organised along the lines of cavalry, and were intended to be used for the traditional roles of cavalry, such as skirmishing, reconnaissance, screening and raids, but by making use of firepower alone, rather than shock action with the mounted charge using sword or lance. By using firepower they were also able to take up the traditional infantry role of seizing and holding ground to a limited degree.
Mounted Infantry were defined, particularly after Federation, as traditional infantry more or less temporarily provided with a form of animal locomotion to give them greater mobility.
There was a debate about the whole issue in the years leading up to Federation. When the Australian Army was created from the former six colonial forces MAJGEN Sir Edward Hutton moved quickly to ensure the mounted arm was established as mounted rifles rather than mounted infantry. In essence the Light Horse undertook most of the roles of the cavalry but with firepower rather than with bladed weapons or through shock action.
It is interesting to note that at Beersheba, while a mounted charge was made, on reaching the Turkish lines many of the men dismounted to fight the Turks with rifle and bayonet, although others rode on into the town. Later at Semakh the 11th LH also undertook a mounted charge but on reaching the objective they dismounted and again fought through using the rifle and bayonet. Thus while the mounted charge was made in each instance, the fight on reaching the enemy was not made in the traditional cavalry mode of remaining mounted and fighting with sword or lance.
I agree with Steve; the author of article may be making some of his judgements on a misunderstanding of the differences between mounted infantry and mounted rifles and hence probably places too much emphasis on the change he claims occurred.
Cheers
Chris
Just to add to Steve's comment that the Light Horse were trained as Mounted Rifles rather than Mounted Infantry.
The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History has a couple of articles on the differences between Mounted Infantry and Mounted Rifles and that the Light Horse was organised as mounted rifles, not mounted infantry. The difference was a moot point in the actual role of the units as both terms are frequently used interchangeably without regard to the technical differences. According to the book, the two terms denoted different types of mounted troops, particularly after Federation (1901). The Oxford Companion reflects contemporary views I gleaned many years ago from reading articles in professional journals written by militia officers in the period 1890 -1910.
Mounted Rifles was a title applied to mounted troops organised along the lines of cavalry, and were intended to be used for the traditional roles of cavalry, such as skirmishing, reconnaissance, screening and raids, but by making use of firepower alone, rather than shock action with the mounted charge using sword or lance. By using firepower they were also able to take up the traditional infantry role of seizing and holding ground to a limited degree.
Mounted Infantry were defined, particularly after Federation, as traditional infantry more or less temporarily provided with a form of animal locomotion to give them greater mobility.
There was a debate about the whole issue in the years leading up to Federation. When the Australian Army was created from the former six colonial forces MAJGEN Sir Edward Hutton moved quickly to ensure the mounted arm was established as mounted rifles rather than mounted infantry. In essence the Light Horse undertook most of the roles of the cavalry but with firepower rather than with bladed weapons or through shock action.
It is interesting to note that at Beersheba, while a mounted charge was made, on reaching the Turkish lines many of the men dismounted to fight the Turks with rifle and bayonet, although others rode on into the town. Later at Semakh the 11th LH also undertook a mounted charge but on reaching the objective they dismounted and again fought through using the rifle and bayonet. Thus while the mounted charge was made in each instance, the fight on reaching the enemy was not made in the traditional cavalry mode of remaining mounted and fighting with sword or lance.
I agree with Steve; the author of article may be making some of his judgements on a misunderstanding of the differences between mounted infantry and mounted rifles and hence probably places too much emphasis on the change he claims occurred.
Cheers
Chris
g'day all,
except that the Imperial camel Corps were mounted infantry, in that they couldn't charge a camel and had to dismount some distance back.
cheers
Dekenai
except that the Imperial camel Corps were mounted infantry, in that they couldn't charge a camel and had to dismount some distance back.
cheers
Dekenai
Gentlemen, I have found this topic very instructive, and I would like to thank you. I also would like to direct you to this website,on the Light Horse, that you may already know but, just in case.......
Cheers
Joe
http://alh-research.tripod.com/toc.htm
Cheers
Joe
http://alh-research.tripod.com/toc.htm
And then there's Light Horse v Heavy Horse.
Just to give a sense of the confusion that surrounds a single formation with all different permutations, this is an outline of Australia's oldest, home grown mounted unit:
Reedbeds Cavalry and Goolwa Cavalry, 1840 - 1867
Duke of Edinburgh's Hussars, 1867 - 1899
South Australian Mounted Rifles (SAMR), 1899-1903
16th (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1903-1912
22nd (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1912-1919
3rd (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1919-1942
3rd Reconnaissance Company, 1942-1952
3rd/9th South Australian Mounted Rifles, 1952 -
Even in the names of the unit, there was a conflict between the territorial title and the functional title of the unit, vis a vis, mounted rifles v light horse. Now that has been resolved by disposing of the horses and riding around in armour. You can see their current work at:
http://www.samrainc.org/
I am not sure the actual doctrines were ever settled as to their actual use in the days of yore. I suspect that after a bit of training, they made it up as they went and these fine distinctions went out the window.
Cheers
Bill
Just to give a sense of the confusion that surrounds a single formation with all different permutations, this is an outline of Australia's oldest, home grown mounted unit:
Reedbeds Cavalry and Goolwa Cavalry, 1840 - 1867
Duke of Edinburgh's Hussars, 1867 - 1899
South Australian Mounted Rifles (SAMR), 1899-1903
16th (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1903-1912
22nd (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1912-1919
3rd (SAMR) Australian Light Horse Regiment, 1919-1942
3rd Reconnaissance Company, 1942-1952
3rd/9th South Australian Mounted Rifles, 1952 -
Even in the names of the unit, there was a conflict between the territorial title and the functional title of the unit, vis a vis, mounted rifles v light horse. Now that has been resolved by disposing of the horses and riding around in armour. You can see their current work at:
http://www.samrainc.org/
I am not sure the actual doctrines were ever settled as to their actual use in the days of yore. I suspect that after a bit of training, they made it up as they went and these fine distinctions went out the window.
Cheers
Bill
Ahhh, Bill,so you're the creator of that great website..... 
..good of you to let others do your advertising.... 
Joe
..good of you to let others do your advertising.... Joe
Joe
I gotta plead guilty and accept your kind words.
Might I add that it is a good job you are doing in bringing these topics to the attention of everyone. Hardened nuts like me will have already accessed them, catalogued them and forgotten them since they are too general. However, for new chums, they are good primers.
Keep up the good work mate.
Cheers
Bill
I gotta plead guilty and accept your kind words.
Might I add that it is a good job you are doing in bringing these topics to the attention of everyone. Hardened nuts like me will have already accessed them, catalogued them and forgotten them since they are too general. However, for new chums, they are good primers.
Keep up the good work mate.
Cheers
Bill
Gents,
Could I contribute a small part to this and I will bow to the acknowledged experts in the thread. As we know Light Horse is not a distinctly Australian unit title, both Canada and India having Light Horse units in the late 19th Century. I believe "Light Horse" was a term begun in the early part of the 19th Century around the time of the Peninsula War, for a mounted rifle unit below the skill levels of Yeomanry of volunteers from within the region where they were intended to operate, probably to fill the "policing" gap left by the deployment of the regular army units to the Continent. The difference between a Yeomanry and Light Horse unit may have been more to do with the sort of volunteers, Yeoman being landowners, Light Horseman may have been professional people from the towns or villages, and where they could be employed, Yeomanry being available for service anywhere within Britain, whereas Light Horse were possibly intended only for use in their county. I can't quote the source, but I came across it during a scan of publications, possibly at the N&M Press a few months ago.
As to 2/14, I believe the correct title is 2/14 LHR (QMI) rather than 2/14 (QMI) Cavalry (Regiment) and that their role is "cavalry" but probably not in the strictest sense of the term used by the US, nor indeed by the UK now, as I believe they have a "lift" task and capability for infantry, in that regard they probably have more in common with the old 4 Cav Regt (APC). As to the unit title, it happens when you are politically trying to maintain identity, I recall the guys from 4 Cav, didn't like amalgamating with 3 Cav and that 3/4 Cav didn't like amalgamting with 2/14 LHR (QMI) and losing their regular army identity, I have no doubt it was the same with the Moreton Regiment and the QMI.
Cheers,
Hendo
Could I contribute a small part to this and I will bow to the acknowledged experts in the thread. As we know Light Horse is not a distinctly Australian unit title, both Canada and India having Light Horse units in the late 19th Century. I believe "Light Horse" was a term begun in the early part of the 19th Century around the time of the Peninsula War, for a mounted rifle unit below the skill levels of Yeomanry of volunteers from within the region where they were intended to operate, probably to fill the "policing" gap left by the deployment of the regular army units to the Continent. The difference between a Yeomanry and Light Horse unit may have been more to do with the sort of volunteers, Yeoman being landowners, Light Horseman may have been professional people from the towns or villages, and where they could be employed, Yeomanry being available for service anywhere within Britain, whereas Light Horse were possibly intended only for use in their county. I can't quote the source, but I came across it during a scan of publications, possibly at the N&M Press a few months ago.
As to 2/14, I believe the correct title is 2/14 LHR (QMI) rather than 2/14 (QMI) Cavalry (Regiment) and that their role is "cavalry" but probably not in the strictest sense of the term used by the US, nor indeed by the UK now, as I believe they have a "lift" task and capability for infantry, in that regard they probably have more in common with the old 4 Cav Regt (APC). As to the unit title, it happens when you are politically trying to maintain identity, I recall the guys from 4 Cav, didn't like amalgamating with 3 Cav and that 3/4 Cav didn't like amalgamting with 2/14 LHR (QMI) and losing their regular army identity, I have no doubt it was the same with the Moreton Regiment and the QMI.
Cheers,
Hendo
Well to all Aussies ,(damn time zones) g'day and thanks Bill.
Cheers to all
Joe
Cheers to all
Joe
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.