Talk:Horses in World War I

Horses v machine guns

While reading a journal article about something else entirely (sound ranging), in relation to the Battle of Cambrai (1917):

The breakthrough was to be exploited by five cavalry divisions that Field Marshal Haig had allocated for that purpose. They failed in part because, as the British Official History, quoting an American, put it: 'You can't make a cavalry charge until you have captured the enemy's last machine gun'.

From "Lawrence Bragg's Role in the Development of Sound-Ranging in World War I", Author(s): William Van der Kloot, Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Sep. 22, 2005), p. 281, Published by: The Royal Society, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30041503

The article attributed the original quote to: Captain Wifried (compiler), Military operations in France and Belgium 1917. The battle of Cambrai (HMSO, London, 1948). Which I may be able to lay my hands on to see if it actually identifies the "American". David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

David, sorry for the delayed response. I've added a sentence on this to the American section; please let me know if it wasn't what you had in mind! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found the full quote now:

It is by no means certain, however, that there was any place for bodies of horse [i.e. cavalry or other horsed units] on the battlefields of 1917, an eminent American said apropos of a French attempt which failed, 'You can't make a cavalry charge until you have captured the enemy's last machine gun'.

— Captain Wifried (compiler), Military operations in France and Belgium 1917. The battle of Cambrai, Preface, p. iv, [HMSO, London, 1948]. 1991 Imperial War Museum/The Battery Press. ISBN 0898391628

As you can see, unfortunately it's no more specific as to who the American actually was. David Underdown (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Over 100 percent

What does it mean, in the casualties section, that the death rates were 290% of original stocks? The same goes for other figures that go beyond 100%. Kulystab (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically that the military kept bringing in additional horses, and so by the end of the war, 2.9 times the number of horses they started the war with had been killed. Therefore, 290% of the original stock of horses. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. And another question: does the original stock of horses refer to the stock Britain had in general, or only to the stock that it had in East Africa alone? Kulystab (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the number to be based on the stock of horses held by the British military at the beginning of the war. So, not all of the horses in Britain, but not just those in East Africa either. I'll be working on the article more this evening (just got my new ILL book in, yay!), so I'll do some tweaks on this section to make it a bit more readable. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks a lot. I'm now translating this article into the Hebrew Wikipedia, so I might badger you a bit more, if you don't mind. That's a fine aritcle you have here. There was just one thing that felt awkward and that was the information regarding Russia or France under the Central Powers section. I know it comes as a comparison, but still, it feels a bit strange. Also, if you have more information about the use of horses in the Ottoman Empire, it could give a better picture on the battles in the Middle Eastern theater. Kulystab (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be adding some information on the Ottomans in just a bit - that is what I was waiting on the ILL book for. I'm not sure what you mean by the information on Russia and France in the Central Powers section. The is only one mention of the French (other than the geographical area occupied by the Germans) in the Central Powers section as a subsection of Procurement. If you are meaning the Continental Europe section of the article, this is meant to be a geographical division, not a division by sides. That is why information on France, Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary is in the same section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Kulystab, I forgot to say last night that it is great that you are translating the article into the Hebrew WP. I have no problem with being "badgered" - I believe that being translated into another language is one of the best tests that prose can go through! (Most of the Ottomon information has been added, as well, in case you hadn't seen). Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kulystab, feel free to drop me a line if Dana is busy; she's the one with all the books on Horses in WWI, but I did a lot of the wordsmithing and am the one who's the history geek, so if there is a question about meaning, I can probably pitch in some too... Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review comments

• Hi, responding to peer review request. It was the percentages that stopped me in my tracks too. Not sure how best to distribute the rest of my points so will leave them all here. Copy this to the peer review page if you feel it is appropriate.
• Though the percentage figures become clear when explained in the talk page, I feel that a little more explanation in the article would resolve doubt. A less confusing option, if the figures are available, might be to give the casualties as a proportion of *all* horses involved in a conflict, then give the number originally sent as a proportion of the total horses, making it clear that extras were sent due to the attrition.

• I added a note into the text to hopefully make the statistics more understandable. I don't have the figures that you propose to use (wish I did), and I don't want to mess with the source's numbers too much and risk the claim of original research. Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I like the pre-contents-box para to be more concise, offering a guide to navigating the article, and let the sections talk for themselves, maybe each with an introductory sentence.

• Unfortunately, wiki MOS wants the lead to be a summary of the article, if it's too short, we'll get spanked for not being a true summary. Damned if we do or don't. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Montana is correct on this. WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs for an article over 30kb, and at almost 60kb, four paragraphs is almost requisite. If you have suggestions for making the lead more concise without cutting length (is that an oxymoron?), I would love to hear them! Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• This quote, both lively and cutting, moved me: worth putting in a quote box with the context under, to break up the text, I'd say: Canada and the United States: "You can't make a cavalry charge until you have captured the enemy's last machine gun."[32]

• Nice idea. Dana is working on the sourcing there, the blockquote idea may be good for visual appeal. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• David wasn't able to find the actual name of the person who said it, but I don't think it's a huge deal. I've put the quote into a quote box, let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some tables of statistics near the top of the article would also help get an overview, as well as break the relatively large areas of text. Perhaps prose representing only statistics could be cut altogether in favour of a table, thus allowing the reader to focus more on the separate aspects of narrative and statistics.

• It's Dana's call, but I think that could be a challenge, as we have such variety it's hard to consolidate into a single table, apples and oranges, you know. Worth chewing on, though. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have considered doing this, but the problem is finding similar data to compare for all (or even some) of the countries. Sources don't even all agree on how many horses were killed in the use of the British, and that is one of the most heavily studied areas of the subject. I know the Bulgarians used cavalry in the war, but in all of my searching could only find a passing mention of this. I have no solid numbers for horses used/killed in Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria, or Italy. All of this missing data would make a table confusing at best and incomprehensible at worst, IMO.

• The relative emphasis of level 2 and 3 heading is very close and easy to forget as one reads (in the standard wiki format anyway), so the logistic support section reads as tacked on the end, being smaller than the sub sections of the cavalry section. Not glam, but could it go before the cavalry section? Could the cavalry section also be broken into the introductory section, and a new heading created such as "Theatres..." or, something more specific to which Army - there seems to be some crossover of specificity here too.

• I've moved the logistical support section ahead of the cavalry section as a test. Check it out and let me know what you think. As for separating out the Cavalry section, I'm not really sure on this. I think that rearranging the information currently separated by country into sections by theatres would make for more redundancy. I believe that the way it is currently laid out makes it easier to show trends in how each individual country's usage of horses changed throughout the war. Also, I'm not sure why there would be a need to separate the introduction from the by-country sections - the introduction IMO provides a good overview of how cavalry was used and how that use changed before the article goes into a more in-depth discussion of each country's usage.

• Not entirely sure this switch was an improvement, but I do see the value of putting the shorter bit first from a readability standpoint. I redid it a bit so the first thing we discuss in the article is NOT mules. Hmmm. We will have to redo the lead to match if we keep it this way, I'm willing to live with it for a few days to see how it feels. I do NOT favor redoing the cavalry section to any significant extent, other than maybe to separate out the allies from the central powers a bit more, thus killing off the "Continental" section in favor of either nations or theaters of war, as after all, there wasn't really any action in the British Isles themselves. (Remember, I kind of wanted it that way a while back...) Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure I like it either, but I thought I'd do it as a test and see what the reaction was. As for the cavalry section, splitting the europe section into eastern front/western front probably wouldn't work. Partially because Germany had horses on both fronts, but also because then we'd have a half-theatre, half-country split in the cavalry section, and people would be asking us why the UK info wasn't split the same way. I don't favor rewriting the entire cavalry section by theatre, as I said above, because I think it would introduce redundancy. What about keeping the Continental Europe section and adding subheaders for Allied nations and Central Powers? Or, separating the Europe section into "Germany and Austro-Hungary" and "Russia and France", which would keep the nations allied with each other together. I just don't want to get too many little sections in there, because then people will complain that its choppy. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• My summary: a valuable, sobering, thought provoking article, well researched, but attention to presentation would make it more engaging. Hope this helps, Trev M (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input! Good food for thought! Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• My thanks also for your input Trev. Please take a look at the changes I have made, and my responses when I didn't change something, and let me know what you think! Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Found a photo from Gallipoli showing horses being landed from a ship, which might be of interest. Plus a more typical one showing use as draught animals. Gwinva (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like both of those, and will add them in. A quick question on the draught animal one - are we sure those are horses and not mules? Those ears look really long... Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, they are mules. I really like both too, though, the offloading horses one might be good for the Ottoman Empire section because it's at Gallipoli. Not sure which side the soldiers are, but I did see something that looked like a Fez... Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they're Kiwis, or at least ANZAC. The photos are from the New Zealand archives, at least. I'll get these added in tomorrow - it's getting late tonight. Thanks again, Gwinva! Dana boomer (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I'm better at identifying soldiers than mules! They're ANZACs offloading for their Gallipoli Campaign; the ship might well be civilian...probably from Egypt. (I'll change the commons photo name, to remove that "horse" bit!) Gwinva (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hee Hee! Or, perhaps "Hee Haw!" Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've switched out the photos for a couple of more generic ones. Let me know what you think! Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

they look good. Gwinva (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

minor quibble

Why is there a section "Aust and NZ" without any mention of NZ? Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Cause Dana couldn't find anything? Got some good stuff we can add -- about the horses angle? Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually mainly because I must have been completely asleep everytime I read that section, and honestly thought that we had more on ANZAC as a whole and less about Australia specifically. I've got some information, I'll add it in in a bit. (Although Gwinva, if you have any good tidbits, I would be more than happy to see them!) Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can probably find as much as you want. Off the top of my head, I do know the Anzac Mounted Division were 1/3 NZ, 2/3 Aust; that they carried rifles and machine guns, rather than cavalry sabres and sidearms like the British (in the anticipation they would usually dismount to fight); that they shipped their own horses to war, but at the conclusion of the war, the surviving horses couldn't be returned home, and most were taken into the desert and shot, which must have been devastating for the troops. Gwinva (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on ANZAC as a whole and did some trimming of the Australia stuff. It's still a little Aussie-heavy, but better, I hope? I've already got some stuff in the article on Aussie horses not being returned (besides one), but if you have something on the same happening to NZ horses I would love to add it in. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We can probably take the existing section, word it to say "Australia (existing footnote) and New Zealand (new footnote) ...blah, blah, blah. All we need is a good source! By the way, G, now that you're back, pop over to HIMA, there's a dead link there, the darn armouries rearranged their web site (phooey!)Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking - I just hadn't been able to find the sources yet, so I was hoping that Gwinva could bail me out :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can do. Busy day right now, but haven't forgotten. Gwinva (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just added a bit to include NZ; don't want to do much for fear of undue weight; the section is already longer than the others, and does seem a bit UNDUE. The charge is good stuff, since it is the "last", but is the waler quote needed? (It only refers to the Aust horses - I don't know what breed the NZ ones were, but there are similar quotes about them.) It could be moved to the Waler page, and replaced with a short reference to the Waler breed being respected. Gwinva (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. I can see your point about the quote possibly being undue weight. However, I really liked it as it showed what the horses really went through during this war. To make it shorter we could remove the first and last sentences, if you think this should help, and it would remove the "Walers are the greatest, they can jump tall buildings" feel that the quote currently has. Just FYI, the quote is a cut down version of the one that is already in the Waler horse article, so we wouldn't need to worry about putting it over there if we decide to cut it here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I never looked at Waler!  :) It is an interesting quote; my only concern was that by lengthening the ANZAC section it seems to inflate to inflate their importance (forget leaping buildings in single bounds..these folk won the whole damn war).... it would go quite nicely in the "casualties" section (which covers more than casualties and could be retitled) under the bit about feeding and before the bit about bad conditions leading to death. Talking of condition...I do remember reading one medical history which attributed all the human dysentery/disease/poor trench conditions to the presence of horses. Could hunt it out again if that interested you. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I agree that it could easily be moved to the casualties section. Any ideas on what to rename the section to? I have realized for some time that it covers more than casualties, but haven't been able to come up with a title for the section that I really liked. Let's figure out a title and then I'll move the quote over. I would love to see that medical history, it would be great information to include, perhaps in the to-be-renamed casualties section. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. I tweaked a little bit of verbiage, but in terms of size, the section is about equal to the US/Canada one and shorter than the Continental Europe chunk, so I have no problems with it. But if you want to rearrange more, not a problem with me. Section looks OK to me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanitation!

I looked up that medical quote. It's not as wonderfully concise as I remembered, but scattered over a few pages. How much do you want to make of it? War Surgery and Medicine notes that "The presence of horses in the lines in base camps in Egypt in the First World War made it difficult to maintain a high standard of hygiene". NZ Medical service notes further that "The condition of the battle field and back areas was insanitary to a serious degree. Flies were prevalent in unusual numbers and were found to be breeding freely in recent horse manure—nothing had been done on transport or waggon lines to check fly breeding". Sanitary officers supervised, amongst other things, the disposal of horse carcasses. NZ Medical Service also tells us about Capt. Lelean's sanitation rules (backed up by EE Austen's entomology research on flies and dysentery), including the "disposal of horse manure. A general routine order dated March 15th gave instructions that fresh manure from horse lines was to be taken to a site three quarters of a mile to leeward of the camp, there spread out to dry and subsequently burnt. A small tram line was constructed to carry out this order, but the process of burning not proving satisfactory, burial was resorted to.". The NZ Divisional Sanitary School (!) even gave lectures on "the Sanitation of Horse Lines". I've seen reviews and references of Lelean's "Sanitation in War", which seems to have been pretty influential, but there does not appear to be any text online.
As an additional point of interest, NZ War Effort notes various issues regarding veterinary care and diseases; it notes towards the end that "Experience proved that a horse over 15.2 hands was not suitable. Short-backed, thick-set horses 14.2 to 14.3 hands, or small thoroughbreds up to 15 hands, with good bone, symmetry and substance, proved the best." (Complete with the parochial comment that "the New Zealand horses of the proper type and build went through the difficulties extraordinarily well. They stood the hardships better than any other horses, except some of those from Australia". So there, Walers!) Gwinva (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'll defer to Dana on what to add, but I can certainly vouch for the unsuitability of horse manure for burning; we ignited some old tree branches on top of our compost heap to add a little ash to the mix, and the uncomposted horse poop that ignited with the branches smoldered for hours after the wood was long gone, it took forever to put out and there were still obvious horse turds at the end! Yet, compost the stuff properly, and in six months or less the inside of the pile looks and smells like garden soil! LOL! As for the small horse bit, hooray for smaller horses! My favorites! (Why everyone thinks they need a horse over 15.2 has more to do with ego than utility, IMHO....) Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a few sentences on the sanitation aspect to the Logistical support section to follow up the stuff on morale-boosting. I know that all doesn't really fit there, but I can't really figure out what else to do with it. Let me know what you think, anyways. I'll add the stuff on procurement tomorrow; I ran out of time today after doing a bit of chopping to make it less Brit-heavy in that section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me, and a clever place to put it, IMHO. Adds balance. I wouldn't correlate it as precisely the opposite of morale-boosting, that struck me as a bit awkward, but rather as simply the down side to having them around...which it was... Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've finished my additions of the above information. Gwinva, this has been a treasure trove of information, thank you so much for finding it! Please let me know if there is something important that I have left out... Dana boomer (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts from PR

Hello to everyone who may be watching this page! A couple of comments have come up in the peer review that I would like further comments on:

• Should links be made from each country to their corresponding "country in WWI" article (for example History of Germany during World War I)? This would probably include linking the first instance of each country in the lead and again in the body of the article. Another possibility would be to link through an inline see also template at the beginning of each section in the Cavalry section. The reviewer felt this would give the reader more context, while I feel it may be headed towards overlinking. Thoughts?
• It was suggested that we might want to put the Procurement section before the Cavalry section - in other words to have it as the first section after the ToC. It would fit better with the timeline this way (how they got the horses, what they did with them, how they died/were injured, what happened after). I can see the pros and cons of both sides of this, and would like to hear further input from others before a final decision is made.

Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The nation linking maybe would be better done with the Main tags to the country in WWI articles than with wikilinks, which might wind up being dumped by someone who thinks you are just linking to nations. I don't know if moving the procurement section would work of not, I have to think about it. Could work. Keep the casualties section where it is, though. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Main or see also links would probably be better, since this article is more on the military aspects, articles like British Army during World War I, Indian Army during World War I, Military history of Australia during World War I etc might be better than the country-x in World War I articles, which tend to have more coverage of political issues, the home front etc. David Underdown (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the right link depends on the topic of the section. My thinking is that what seems best can be popped in, and if there's something better out there then others can refine if needed? Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess my main question is - are these links that we really need and people will use to gain more context, or will they be in there just for the sake of having more blue links? Also, consistency would be needed - an article about the British Army during the war is a lot different from an article about the whole of the Australian military during the war (especially when that article contains information about the home front, repatriation, etc). Also, per Template:WWI history by nation, the MHofAustralia is considered the same as the History of Germany one, just with different titles, as they both include information about the home front, politics, etc. Just a few thoughts. I honestly don't think the links are needed, but if it's decided that they are, I'll deal with it :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I guess those who care can propose specific links and specific locations. I don't, particularly with things so thoroughly wikilined in the text. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

True, on second thought, First Australian Imperial Force is the most direct equivalent to the British Army and Indian Army articles-though there's little about horses in it. David Underdown (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambrai

It's always been in th back of my mind that the Battle of Cambrai (1917) covers in one neat package much of what we discuss in this article, but until recently, didn't really have nay sources. The battle is now chiefly remembered as the first great tank battle, and also saw the first concerted use of aircraft in a ground attack role (by both sides), and more strategically raids to attack lines of communications further in the front to hinder resupply and reinforcement, and also key new artillery techniques, but cavalry was always planned to have a key role (WWI tanks were too slow to be much use in exploiting a breakout). Cavalry of the UK, Canada, India and Germany took part in mounted actions, and at various times were also thrown into the line dismounted when the situation became particularly desperate. Three VCs were awarded to cavalrymen, the Canadian Harcus Strachan, the Indian Gobind Singh (VC) were both for actions that were at least in part mounted (Singh had three horses shot out from under him when he was trying to carry messages from his unit to or from HQ, one literally cut in half by an artillery shell), and the British George William Burdett Clare was also a cavalryman, but his exploits seem to have been entirely dismouted. The book I've been reading, Hammond, Bryn (2009). Cambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle. Orion Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7538-2605-8. has a lot of first hand accounts from both sides, and in addition to the cavalry also talks about th euse of horses to rescue captured guns from no-man's land - one in particular describes how two teams of 16 horses each were taken out one night, each horse had its hooves covered with (empty) sandbags to reduce the noise from the shoes, tack and the chains and so on which were to be attached to the guns were wrapped in string, again to reduce the noise - even the drivers had sandbags wrapped around their boots to reduce noise from the stirrups. They successfully rescued the two guns, the two teams galloping back up hill, and then waited for about half an hour while the Germans plastered the road they had to go down to get back to British lines with an artillery barrage, and then calmy took them home.

The book also has some nice illustrations, many of which are photos from the Imperial War Museum that we may be able to make use of, I'll try to put some links up over the next few days and hopefully someone will be able to work out the copyright situation, and decide if they are worthwhile. David Underdown (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully these two links will work, http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=NEXT_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwmcollections.org.uk%2FqryMain.php&TN=Uncat&SN=AUTO5783&SE=4012&RN=4&MR=25&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=1&XP=&RF=allResults&EF=&DF=allDetails&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=1&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=0&NR=0&NB=0&SV=0&BG=0&FG=0&QS= is another of Indian Cavalry, but this time you can see they are carrying lances (there are a couple of others ffom the same time as the one we already have of the Deccan Horese before High Wood, but again closer up, and the lances and tack visible), and http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=NEXT_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwmcollections.org.uk%2FqryMain.php&TN=Uncat&SN=AUTO5783&SE=4012&RN=4&MR=25&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=1&XP=&RF=allResults&EF=&DF=allDetails&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=1&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=0&NR=0&NB=0&SV=0&BG=0&FG=0&QS= is Strachan and the Fort Garry Horse.

Particualrly with the second image, maybe worth also looking for a copy in Canadian sources without the watermark. David Underdown (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)