[moon2713]

I am doing an asssessment on WW1 and I have to say whether horses or guns would have been more useful to the British Expeditionary Force in France, 1915. Horses would be better for moving around but guns would be better for fighting. What do you think? Any help would be great!

[Mr. D. Bryant]

I hope that your teacher will forgive me for saying so, but it seems to be a rather odd question. What sort of guns? Rifles, which were carried by cavalrymen anyway, machine-guns, or heavy guns - artillery - which fired explosive and shrapnel shells?

By 1915 no-one was trying to break the trench deadlock by charging defended trenches on horseback. Why do you think this was? Think about the sort of defences used in trench warfare and the weapons being used. Some generals still believed that cavalry could have an important role to play after the defences had been broken through, but of course this never really happened until 1918. So, on the battlefield I think you have your answer.

However, in terms of moving supplies, e.g ammunition, food etc. and artillery, horse-drawn transport still had an important part to play. Although horses were not used to transport things too close to the lines, as they were vulnerable.

I hope that this helps.

[moon2713]

Thanks for your help. I hope I get a good mark!