Logical Problems with a Horse That Goes to War


Sure, this new “War Horse” movie seems to have the makings of a champion. It’s based on a highly acclaimed stage play, it’s about a boy and a horse, and it’s directed by Steven Spielberg. That’s a potent combination. But we are skeptical! We have certain issues with the premise, which we will enumerate below.

Logical Problems with a Horse That Goes to War

How can a horse fire a gun? Horses don’t even have fingers. This seems obvious.

A horse would take up a lot of room in the transport vehicles. On the other hand, being a horse, it could just run alongside the vehicle. But the other soldiers don’t have to do that. Why should the horse soldier have to work harder just because it’s a horse? I guess the real issue here is equality.

And what about saluting? Their legs don’t really even bend that way.

If you think regular soldiers are rowdy when they get a weekend furlough in a port city, wait till you see horses.

A regular soldier gets hurt, you can patch him up and put him back to work. A horse gets one measly broken leg and you have to kill it.

Very few horses would be able to pass the written exam.

It is unlikely that the standard food rations given to combat soldiers would have the right nutrients for a horse, and where are you going to find hay and oats on a battlefield? Unless we go to war against Kansas, I mean. Is it worth going to war against Kansas just so our horse-soldiers will have food to eat? Maybe, maybe not.

Most horses would refuse to trim their manes to meet military regulations. Also, the military has a longstanding policy against pony tails.

It’s hard for a platoon to keep a low profile in enemy territory when one of its members weighs a thousand pounds and sleeps standing up. That’s just not good strategy.

When you ask a horse how many enemy soldiers are approaching, you have to wait while it stomps its foot the right number of times.

There’s bound to be controversy when, next thing you know, zebras want in.

— Film.com