MOUNTED TROOPS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 23 October 1942, Page 4

MOUNTED TROOPS

SHOULD THERE BE MORE? VIEW OF GENERAL PUTTICK Wellington. This Day. j In an interview yesterday the General ' Officer Commanding the New Zealand ; Forces. Lieut.-General E. Puttick D. 5.0.. ; N.Z.S.C.. was asked whether it would j not be advisable to have more mounted units in view of the fact that New Zealand had no substantial natural fuel resources for its mechanised forces, whereas mounted units could live off the country and negotiate areas un- j suitable for mechanised units. He replied that New Zealand had j sufficient Army fuel in storage to meet | any envisaged situation. . Mounted I troops were far from mobile so far as ! movements over long distances were concerned. For instance, if there were* mounted units at Palmerston North, j and an attack was made at New Ply- I mouth, it would take three or lour ' days for them to get there; from the | same point motorised or mechanised units could cover the distance in a few hours. And if this attack on New Plymouth was only a feint and it was necessary to divert forces sent there to Napier, for instance, the horses would not be fit to continue the trip without adequate rest. The main consideration must be the mobility of troops. Mounted troops must be somewhere near the locality where they were to be employed. The manpower situation did not permit ot the consequent distribution that this entailed. If we had more permanently mobilised mounted troops we would have a corresponding reduction in other arms. Nonetheless. ! he would like to see more mounted i troops, and was encouraging their formation in the Home Guard which automatically provided horsemen at . numerous points where they might prove of great value to other forces which proceeded there. As well there were independent Mounted Rifles squadrons. More mounted units exist- 1 cd than wa- generally a engined.