I have now gone through the lead and double checked to make sure that it thoroughly and correctly summarizes the article. This has resulted in the lead growing a bit, but this is to be expected, as the body of the article has grown since I originally wrote the lead. I don't think that a lot of your cuts would benefit the lead. For example, you cut most of the first sentence. The fact that horse use in World War I "reflected a transitional period in the evolution of armed conflict" is a crucial statement that is discussed and fully sourced in the body of the article. Not only did the use of horses change during World War I, but those changes were a major part of the de-horsing of war over the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, I'm not really convinced of the "tautologies" you claim. Logistics is (to borrow the wiki's definition) "the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources, including energy and people, between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of consumers". Horses help this management, and therefore by definition they are supporting logistics, i.e. in logistical support. Also, with the phrase "mechanized armored divisions" we are trying to emphasize that the non-mechanized, non-armored horse was replaced by divisions that are both. I would ask you to please read the entire article, look at the sourcing, and then, only at that point, make comments on whether the article thoroughly and correctly summarizes the body. It's really not fair to ask for sourcing or changes when you don't know what is trying to be summarized.