Uh...BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong...I served in the Cav, MOS 19D, from 1985-1996. M-113s, M-901 ITVs, M3 Bradleys, and finally Humvees. "Scouts Out!" was, and probably still is, a rallying cry in the Cavalry. "Cavalry Ho!" is something fun I like to say, invoking the memory of the horse cavalry, John Wayne in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon", etc.
BTW, don't tell members of the 1st Cavalry Division Horse Detachment that the horse cav was deactivated in 1943. They'll wonder what they've been doing, riding horses all these years.
I have my spurs, too...even though they were also phased out a while back. You probably won't find them in AR 670-1, but you'll find them on those Scouts that have earned them. It's a Cav thing...if you were never in the Cav, you wouldn't understand.
SCOUTS OUT! CAVALRY HO!
“... Uh...BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong...I served in the Cav, ...
BTW, don’t tell members of the 1st Cavalry Division Horse Detachment that the horse cav was deactivated in 1943. They’ll wonder what they’ve been doing, riding horses all these years. ...”
Sundry USA units might pride themselves on inserting the word “cavalry” into regimental designations, but (as wku man conceded) those outfits have been equipped with mechanized vehicles for more than a couple generations. Not the same thing.
Anyone who fancies that First Cav’s Horse Det contributes something beyond morale/heritage augmentation or ceremonial frippery ought to recheck their calendar.
In early 1981 - some years before motivational posters grew trendy - I chanced across a poster adorning the desk of a colleague. On it was printed a memorable aphorism: “Every country should have two armies: one for the parade ground, and one for the battlefield. That second army is the one in which I’d like to fight.”
“...I have my spurs, too.... It’s a Cav thing...if you were never in the Cav, you wouldn’t understand. ...”
wku man is not exactly the first poster I’ve encountered, who insists I cannot possibly “understand” because I didn’t share much of his duty history. I concede the point. None of which answers the key question, about who’s doing the better job of grasping the overall military situation, or the details.
I could write more than an encyclopedia, on what some folks think they understand but don’t, concerning the military. Some of it would be very funny, but a depressingly large fraction would be less than pleasant. I’ll refrain; I’ve no wish to bore the forum into a coma. Besides, obtaining publication approval from the special security offices (yes, I’d have to seek permission from more than one) would be the dreariest hassle.
In defense, I will rely on Winston Spencer Churchill. Summing up the impotence of horse cavalry during the Great War, he observed that on its battlefields, the only thing horse soldiers could actually see through to completion was to cook rice for the infantry.