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