Cavalry in T2K

[Mohoender]

I know that we already talked about that in the past but i wanted to know/say more about that subject as cavalries have been included again in the game.

I'll talk of Russian cavalry as this is my field of expertise.

In T2K, several units have been turned into cavalry, especially among the Warsaw Pact (Poland and Russia). I find that plausible even if that requires some times. Russia, still has enough horses to achieve that, several people know very well how to use horses and several of the older officers (in the time of T2K) must retain a practical idea of the use you can make of a cavalry. At last, it is well documented and past experience will be very usefull. CCCP had used cavalry on a large scale as late as 1945 and I think that they were retired only in the very late 1940's. The offensive on Manchuria was launched using cavalry collaborating with tanks and, in T2K, I would not be surprised to see Russia use the old Trotsky's saying again: "Workers get on Horsback!"

However, T2K cavalry would have nothing in common with 18th and 19th century cavalries and I doubt that many heroic charge will ever take place. In fact, it will be more like WW2 cavalry units: a mobile infantry using horses for movement (No, the poles never launched a charge on Panzer!!:D ). That bring me to a point. Per cannon, the game describes the front to be fairly static but, in Poland, with the fairly important number of cavalry, I see that to be quite unrealistic. Of course, the lack of communication could bring the front to exactly that but what would have been the point of rebuilding a cavalry to simply leave it in cantonments?

What are the weakpoints of cavalry:
- You need remount to replace the losses. You can count that the Russians would not have forgot that and remount sections would have been constituted. However, the horses you can get are often not as sturdy as military mounts and that will reduce efficiency.
- It can be easily wiped out by airstrike. Not really a problem anymore in T2K. Still, it remains an important threat, especially from helicopters.
- You need to feed it. That might seem to be a problem but the red cavalry proved that it was often capable of feeding from the land. After all, horses will eat what you won't. Nevertheless, that can also reduce your efficiency and make you unpopular among locals.
- It lacks firepower. Your mounted troops are only carrying light weaponry (AK-47, LMG, RPG...). However, this was overcome with the use of "Tatchanka", a type of carriage mounting a weapon that is put on the ground or fire to the back. As a result it can easily provide cover fire even in case of retreat. That would be pressed into service again, no doubt, mounting not only HMG but light auto cannon, mortars, anti tank and anti aircraft weapon (including light SAM). You should look at another thread if you want to avoid bad bruns to the driver.:D

What are the main strong point
- It doesn't use fuel and grass is much easier to find.
- You need much less support troops to make it battle worthy. In 1921 a red army cavalry brigade was composed of 2982 men and 3210 horses with 2700 sabers (combat troops). That is a very good ratio I think.
- It can move something like 60 miles per day (100km) which gives it a very high mobility in T2K (of course this is not the case every day). Moreover, if the ennemy doesn't retain the same kind of mobility it can often escape destruction and becomes very efficient using hit and fade tactics. It can also conducts raids behind ennemy lines, quickly becoming a pain. As a result, a relatively small cavalry units can force you to mobilize troops to protect your supplies that would be needed elsewhere
- If the charge is not anymore the main form of attack it still can be of use and a saber remains a very threatening weapon (I have several much to my wife dismay:rolleyes: )
- It can actively collaborate with your tanks. In such case, it can allow your forces to conduct full scale offensives with very little need for gas (reduced to only tanks). Just imagine: your tanks on the offensive, followed by mounted cavalry supported by mortars and auto cannons on Tatchankas.;)
- They can move in very harsh weather conditions while your tanks and truck are still stuck in the ice or mud. Very realistic in Russia.:p

I always found that warsaw Pact cavalry units were a very interesting idea that was underused by the authors (and may be gamers). They should provide some mobility to the Warsaw Pact while NATO would be more static (because of the lack of supply). They also should be more of a threat than described.

Moreover, I hardly see why NATO doesn't rely on them as well. I remember that Jester (I think it's him) answered me that it would certainly be used by special forces (as in Afghanistan today). That's a good idea (used for the recon units in UK and among the Dutch) but that won't be the only case IMO.

During WW2, Nazi Germany rebuilt a number of cavalry units to answer the threat of the Russian cavalry. What do you think will be the case in T2K? Do you think that the western countries still have the horse to achieve that?

One last thing, here is a link to a fairly interesting article on that subject that was published in 1946 (USA):

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/cavalry/

More facts can be found it gives an accurate view of that subject.

[copeab]

What are the weakpoints of cavalry:
- It can be easily wiped out by airstrike. Not really a problem anymore in T2K. Still, it remains an important threat, especially from helicopters.


Horses, being larger than a person, are more likely to be hit by artillery shell fragments. With mortars still reasonably common, this is a problem.

- It lacks firepower. Your mounted troops are only carrying light weaponry (AK-47, LMG, RPG...). However, this was overcome with the use of "Tatchanka", a type of carriage mounting a weapon that is put on the ground or fire to the back.


Chariots of fire(power)!

[headquarters]

The way I read your deployment of cavalry in modern terms ,(being a cavalry man myself -Royal Norwegian Army -ret.),it is what we used to call our own cavalry men -and do up til this day though the horses were all done for in april 1940.

We call them dragoons-meaning a mounted soldier who primarily fights dismounted.

We used to have a force of dragoons and deployed a small number in 1940 when the germans invaded ( history snippet).

The downside to a strategic use of cavalry is that it takes a tremendous amount of horses ,and that horse breeding farms -stutteri- I believe its called in our guttural language -takes years to set up before they start to "yield" .Cavalry horses are supposed to be highly trained -on par with many special K9 units or better imho - the animal must be able to do loads of tricks,like not scared by load bangs ,silent when needed,slow down,speed up,dont fight other horses etc etc .

This is a process that takes along time also and needs professionals to do it right .

I wholly go for the idea of horse cav in T2K -lack of fuel and parts will make it inevitable .( they last used horse cav in Rhodesia in the 1970s as far as I know).But mounting ,training and equipping large formations isw quite the logistical challenge -and one that would take years -5-10 maybe - to get going on a lareger scale .

all imho

[Mohoender]

Horses, being larger than a person, are more likely to be hit by artillery shell fragments. With mortars still reasonably common, this is a problem.


That is equally true for any type of vehicles. The main difference with airstrike is that you can mount an MG or some kind of anti air weapon on a vehicle (not on a horse). What you point out for horses is even more true for a truck or a modern light vehicle.

[Mohoender]

...The downside to a strategic use of cavalry is that it takes a tremendous amount of horses ,and that horse breeding farms -stutteri- I believe its called in our guttural language -takes years to set up before they start to "yield" .Cavalry horses are supposed to be highly trained -on par with many special K9 units or better imho - the animal must be able to do loads of tricks,like not scared by load bangs ,silent when needed,slow down,speed up,dont fight other horses etc etc .

This is a process that takes along time also and needs professionals to do it right .

I wholly go for the idea of horse cav in T2K -lack of fuel and parts will make it inevitable .( they last used horse cav in Rhodesia in the 1970s as far as I know).But mounting ,training and equipping large formations isw quite the logistical challenge -and one that would take years -5-10 maybe - to get going on a lareger scale .

all imho

I didn't know about your dragoons in 1940 (also many countries still had horse cavalry at the time).

I agree with your strategic view of the situation (except may be for the numbers) and that's why I put remount among the weak points as well as the lower quality of non military horses. Training is important of course but not that much when needs arise. The soviets (1919) built their cavalry in a matter of weeks. However, it was not fully efficient before 1920 and started to dominate only in 1921.

That's also why I understand the fact that such units are essencially given for Russia. That country still had 30 million horses or so in the 1990's and plenty of people trained in riding them among the populations of Ukraine, Caucasus, Central Asia, and even Russia. Therefore, that's also what I'm looking for. What about other countries?

I found some numbers for France (300.000), Germany (400.000), Mexico (6.5 million), Poland (1.6 million), and the USA (11 million). Therefore, you have a point as that will limit the hability of NATO on that matter.

If I take the exemple of France, I would assume that we could easily build 2 regiments (hardly more) with one from the Republican Guard and one from the military schools. We could expend that using volunteers knowing how to ride but we would need time (as you say).

What about the USA and Mexico? Especially when I'm thinking about the invasion by Mexico.

Then, what about the European theater? Wouldn't that be a true advantage to the Pact, especially after the american withdrawal?

[kato13]

2006 Horse population numbers

According to the 2006 report, there are 58,372,106 horses in the world. The United States, by far, reports the highest total number of horses with an approximate 9,500,000. This new data provided by FAOSTAT is strikingly similar to the AHC’s own independent study, which reported a U.S. horse population of 9,223,000 in 2005.

Countries, with horse population totals over one million included: China (7,402,450); Mexico (6,260,000); Brazil (5,787,249); Argentina (3,655,000); Columbia (2,533,621); Mongolia (2,029,100); Ethiopia (1,655,383); Russian Federation (1,319,358); and Kazakhstan (1,163,500). Guam (20) and Grenada (30) had the lowest population totals. Two countries, Rwanda and Saint Helena, reported a zero horse population.

Texas reports the largest horse population, with an estimated 978,822. Other leading states include: California (698,345); Florida (500,124); Oklahoma (326,134); Kentucky (320,173); Ohio (306,898); and Missouri (281,255). The state with the fewest horses is Rhode Island (3,509), followed by the District of Columbia, which reports a fluctuating total of around 33.


While searching for that I also found this.


http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor

It has historical agricultural and livestock data for every country in the world.

[kato13]

Here is the horse data from 1997 from the link above

Afghanistan 100,000
Albania 70,000
Algeria 52,370
Angola 1,150
Antigua and Barbuda 460
Argentina 3,300,000
Armenia 13,170
Australia 230,000
Austria 73,234
Azerbaijan 48,600
Barbados 1,000
Belarus 231,500
Belgium-Luxembourg 67,000
Belize 5,000
Benin 500
Bermuda 900
Bhutan 32,062
Bolivia 322,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina 44,000
Botswana 32,500
Brazil 5,831,533
British Virgin Islands 100
Bulgaria 170,469
Burkina Faso 29,181
Cambodia 22,000
Cameroon 16,000
Canada 400,000
Cape Verde 470
Chad 190,414
Chile 600,000
China 8,717,126
Colombia 2,450,000
Congo 65
Cook Islands 300
Costa Rica 114,500
Croatia 19,000
Cuba 525,300
Cyprus 650
Czech Republic 19,059
Denmark 39,000
Dominican Republic 329,000
Ecuador 520,000
Egypt 43,000
El Salvador 95,800
Estonia 4,200
Ethiopia 1,220,000
Falkland Islands 1,215
Fiji 43,500
Finland 54,600
France 339,862
French Guiana 250
French Polynesia 2,200
Gambia 16,422
Georgia 27,800
Germany 670,000
Ghana 2,800
Greece 32,967
Grenada 30
Guadeloupe 950
Guam 15
Guatemala 118,000
Guinea 2,700
Guinea-Bissau 1,850
Guyana 2,400
Haiti 490,000
Honduras 176,000
Hungary 78,900
Iceland 79,804
India 827,000
Indonesia 582,284
Iran, Islamic Republic of 150,000
Iraq 47,000
Ireland 71,900
Israel 4,000
Italy 305,000
Jamaica 4,000
Japan 27,000
Jordan 4,000
Kazakhstan 1,310,000
Kenya 2,000
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 40,000
Korea, Republic of 7,652
Kuwait 1,100
Kyrgyzstan 314,100
Lao People's Democratic Republic 26,000
Latvia 25,800
Lebanon 5,000
Lesotho 100,000
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 40,000
Lithuania 81,400
Madagascar 420
Malawi 42
Malaysia 4,000
Mali 135,700
Malta 1,000
Martinique 2,000
Mauritania 19,500
Mauritius 150
Mexico 6,250,000
Moldova 58,700
Mongolia 2,770,500
Morocco 145,100
Myanmar 120,000
Namibia 57,099
Netherlands 112,336
New Caledonia 11,800
New Zealand 75,000
Nicaragua 245,000
Niger 99,000
Nigeria 204,000
Norway 23,700
Pakistan 331,000
Panama 165,000
Papua New Guinea 1,700
Paraguay 400,000
Peru 665,000
Philippines 230,000
Poland 558,000
Portugal 22,000
Puerto Rico 24,000
Qatar 3,608
Réunion 400
Romania 816,000
Russian Federation 2,197,000
Rwanda 0
Saint Lucia 1,000
Samoa 2,300
Sao Tome and Principe 240
Saudi Arabia 3,000
Senegal 444,000
Serbia and Montenegro 90,000
Sierra Leone 360,000
Slovakia 10,000
Slovenia 8,450
Solomon Islands 100
Somalia 800
South Africa 255,000
Spain 248,000
Sri Lanka 1,500
Sudan 24,500
Suriname 360
Swaziland 1,370
Sweden 87,477
Switzerland 45,799
Syrian Arab Republic 27,488
Tajikistan 63,900
Thailand 14,672
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 65,869
Timor-Leste 32,713
Togo 1,600
Tonga 11,400
Trinidad and Tobago 1,000
Tunisia 56,200
Turkey 391,000
Turkmenistan 17,000
Ukraine 753,500
United Arab Emirates 320
United Kingdom 177,000
United States of America 5,170,000
Uruguay 500,000
US Virgin Islands 280
Uzbekistan 146,000
Vanuatu 3,100
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 500,000
Viet Nam 119,800
Wallis and Futuna Islands 144
Yemen 3,000
Zimbabwe 24,500


It also has camels and mule data if anyone wants to take a look.

[Legbreaker]

Per cannon, the game describes the front to be fairly static
That is a common misconception.

Although "in spring of the year 2000, the armies of Europe" had "settled into their new cantonment system", the timeline goes further to say "In early summer, the German 3rd Army, spearheaded by the US 11th Corps, moves out of it's cantonments on what is to become one of the last strategic offensives of the war."

As can be seen here http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=3255#post3255 virtually the entire Nato forces in Europe were to be involved in one way or another in the offensive. Yes, I realise this is only one person's take on events, but I'd very much like to hear somebody come up with a better one.

Note also that during the research for the above, I found that the positions stated in the various books and marked in the 2.0and 2.2 yellow books are by and large starting positions for the units before the offensive (only the US 5th ID and US 8th along with those Pact units directly mentioned in "Death of a Division" are shown in their late July 2000 locations).

Now, back to the original topic of this thread...

I tend to agree that cavalry in 2000 is very likely to see a resergence, however horses, just like humans, are subject to disease, radiation, starvation and injury. As food supplies dwindle, more and more people are going to be looking for sustenance in places previously not considered. Horses therefore are certainly going to be in relatively short supply.

Nato has a greater history of mechanisation than Pact forces and most westerners are likely to be loathe to give up their technical advantage just because of a lack of parts and fuel. This coupled with most troops not having the exposure to rural life that the less industrialised Communists have would leave them less able to adjust quickly.

I estimate that Nato commanders would not consider horses until early 1998 when fuel and supply shortages really started to bite. At that time, Nato had on the whole been forced back into Germany and behind their start lines - the Pact had access to a much greater area to draw those animals surviving from the cold 1997-98 winter, radiation, disease, etc. With the only significant Nato offensive of the year being into Czechoslovakia, and only raiding carried out in 1999, very few opportunities would have existed for Nato to aquire mounts.

Those few they did possess would have been far more useful behind the lines, freeing up fuel for the tanks and APCs on the front lines. Also, being a more technically advanced society, less personnel would be available to form cavalry units or train others in horsemanship and mounted operations.

[Rainbow Six]

This link might be of interest for this topic...

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Historical/BritCav2k.htm

[Mohoender]

Nice elements, I see here. One thing, however, kato. The horse account I have are about ten times more important than yours for former Pact countries at the same time (I have 15 million for Russia in 2005).

Take me right, I'm not saying than mines are better than yours, simply that there are some uncertainty on that matter, erf.:confused:

Nice link Rainbow, I had not found it before. Thanks. :)

[Fusilier]

just like humans, are subject to disease, radiation, starvation and injury. As food supplies dwindle, more and more people are going to be looking for sustenance in places previously not considered. Horses therefore are certainly going to be in relatively short supply.

Those horse populations IMO don't mean a heck of a lot I would think considering the quote above. You're going to have to expect a huge decrease in horse numbers if the human population has been through a drastic change. Actually more so, I would believe - humans have a much better ability to adapt and are higher on the food chain for more than one reason.

I can see horse mounted units, or at least service support elements employing them, but I'm doubtful on the amounts listed in the books vs the time frame. I tend to downplay their numbers in my games - the Cav units use them, but its still mostly leg mobile or whatever.

[Mohoender]

Kato

Your numbers make me look more closely at horse population and the least you can say is that they are unreliable at best:D . Depending on the source, you get 230.000 in Australia, 400.000, 500.000... One source will take wild horses, the other doesn't and so on so forth.

Your source gave about 10 million for US but i have found one with 5.2 and another with 6.3.

Same for China, Russia...

However, what is about sure is that this population can change quite quickly in a matter of ten years. I would think that the 30 million for Russia was overestimated but 1.3 might be well be underestimated. What is about sure also is that the Russian horse population was devided by 2 over the past ten years.

Anyway, I would think that any country with an horse population of over 1 million prior to the war is capable of starting a cavalry. Of course, death among the livestock would be a problem but I'm not that convinced that it would dwindle that much. Bringing the horses to the frontline might quickly be a bigger problem, however.

[Adm.Lee]

I think, before the conversion of entire divisions to horsed cavalry, you should see horses being used at the sub-unit level.

First, as a messenger service when a unit is in a relatively static mode, like in cantonment. Why burn off alcohol that you'll need in a real battle just for delivering mail and messages?

Second, spinning off that, you might see officers on inspections or going to conferences using horses, to save wear and tear on vehicles and, again, fuel.

Third, horse scouts for battalion scout platoons or similar units, again mostly when the unit is static, and expanding to when the unit is on the march. If most of the army is no longer capable of carrying its troops and baggage in motor vehicles, then the infantry is walking, and the whole army is reduced to that same pace. The speed of horses is no longer a liability, and is valuable for scouting again.

[kato13]

Your source gave about 10 million for US but i have found one with 5.2 and another with 6.3.


Both the American Horse councel and the UN seem to support this range of numbers.

This page http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release-rss/why-horse-breeders-should-worry-about-the-growth-of-the-equine-industry-6780.php seems to support that there can be signifigant variation over a 10 year period.


In just nine years, the American horse industry has grown from $25.3 billion to $39 billion, an increase of 55%. The equine population in the United States has expanded from 6.9 million to 9.2 million horses, an increase of 33%. Meanwhile, the number of horse owners has risen from 1.9 million to 2.0 million, a modest increase of only about 5%.


8< -----------------Snipped----------------------- >8

Observing that the average number of horses per owner has risen from 3.6 to 4.6, an increase of almost 28%, Andrews said:

"Over the last decade spent working with clients I have observed increases in the number of new breeding farms and in the number of unsold horses that breeders are maintaining. In many cases supply is exceeding demand. I believe that this a primary reason for the increase in the average number of horses per owner reflected in the study."



The exact numbers don't really matter, but the comparison of country to country will give you an idea of how common horses might be in certain areas in a T2k world.

[Graebarde]

Well I know horse owners in this area that have doubled their numbers in the past year... the mares all foaled :D

Here in Huntsville I daily drive by about five pastures holding at least fifty horses each. All the horses are owned by the state of Texas, the TDCJ (prisons) to be exact. They have a horse breeding program here as well. Every prison unit has a herd for the guards. When the 'inmates' (not refered to as cons any more) are working the fields (yes Virginia they raise most of their own food at the prisons) mouted armed guards man the perimeter.

They are not suppose to let inmates closer than 30 feet, yet about a year ago one of the guards was pulled from her horse and shanked to death. Still don't understand the 'trustee' status of a lifer in for murder.:confused:

I'd say locally there could be a squadron of mounted troops put together in a matter of days. A note on the prison horses. According to my 'source' these horses when broke and trained are trained for gunfire. So all are potential cavalry mounts.

[Mohoender]

The exact numbers don't really matter, but the comparison of country to country will give you an idea of how common horses might be in certain areas in a T2k world.

I agree with you. And now I see where the difference lies. Your figures would apply to my game by the way:) However, mine might be more accurate to a regular T2K game. Funny.:D

[Raellus]

Canon also mentions that by 2000, that warfare has largely devolved into raiding between cantonments. Cavalry (i.e. dragoons) would be well suited to these types of hit-and-run operations.

I'm not sure there would be horse population numbers or adequate forage to support cavalry divisions at WWII strength levels but the numbers of troops for cavalry "divisions" in T2K canon are much more modest and realistic. We're not talking Attila or Genghis Khan type horse armies here.

As for HW that T2K cavalry could deploy, on the WTO side, the Vasilek 82mm automortar could be towed by a couple of horses and has both indirect and direct fire capability. You could also have a HW section equipped with AGS-17 "Plamya" 30mm AGLs (fired dismounted, of course). Coupled with LMGs and RPGs, a T2K cavalry unit could pack as much firepower as an equivalent leg infantry unit, save some of the heavier artillery support. WWII era Soviet cavalry had horse-drawn 120mm mortar batteries and 76mm DP guns as well, so there's no reason a T2K WTO cav unit couldn't have a few 120mm mortars as well.

On the old forums, I posted a TOE for a T2K Soviet/WTO Cavalry division based on the structure of a WWII Soviet cavalry division (c.1943). I will post it again if anyone's interested.

[jester]

The US Cavalry has mostly been used as dragoons throughout our history. Although, they would do Cavalry charges, mostly their role was scouting, screening and patroling and such.


As far as Cavalry in the T2K role, in the US the South, West and SouthWest could probably field able mounted forces as a result of their large horse populations and people who know how to ride. Strangly enough, these same people usualy know how to shoot and own firearms too.

Also, an example in my country and the adjacent county they have a working Sheriffs Posse, and they also have some mounted units as well. Hell, even the college police has or had a mounted officer. <Then again that's Norco, horsetown USA, they do not have sidewalks, they have horse trails, and most stores, shops and saloons have corals and hitcing posts> And yes, when the wind blows I can hear the beasties and smell them, and there is a horse trail a long football pass out my backyard.

I would say in the US you could raise a decent sized force of armed riders who would not act as traditonal cavalry but they would not be a mob either. I would also say some units from the US in Europe and Asia could probably put together a Company of Cavalry per Division, these could be used as scouts and reconasanse forces. So, check out the order of battle of the vehicle guide and units from say Texas or Kentucky or New Mexico for example could probably field more riders than you could find mounts.

As for the downside.

Easy targets, and you take out the horse behind enemy lines that rider is essentialy lost. The reality of a raiding force or long range reconasance force is you will end up leaving people behind. Double up riders and the horse will tire and now you'll loose two men.

Tracking, a force of horsemen go by you can tell. And you can follow them quite easily. You can also tell the speed of the rider as well as the load and fatigue level of the animal. You trade them and you can even tell how well fed they are too which if you push them hard enough well the animals can't feed and will become exhausted and give out.

Load, most cavalry riders were not large men. Myself, at 6-2 I would have never made it into the cavalry. So, most of your riders need to be about 150 pounds or less.

WATER; you can control the water for an area and cavalry is in trouble. Horses need water and lots of it.

Maintenance: Horse need maintenance and they need it daily, they need water, they need to be cleaned, brushed, their hooves cleaned and checked and given large amounts of water as well as salt and grain.

Support: horses need large animal vets to take care of them. And blacksmiths to make and shoe them. Those I beleive would be in short supply.

They need maintenance 24 hours a day 7 days a week. A vehicle, turn it off and don't worry about it for a few days and no problem. Do that with a horse, ignore it for a week. Bad idea.

Guarded: in the T2K world you would need to guard your horses from hungry people and from enemy raids.

Machineguns: what killed the cavalry in WWI, now machineguns are smaller and more portable and much more common.

Conditioning 1: Horses are pretty skitish and spook easily. Thus they will need some training. But still a rock crashing can scare them, gunfire, explosions and vehicle engines or a tank could send them into a stampede.

Conditioning 2: The type of work they do. Most horses today are riden for recreational purposes and well tended living in stalls and barns. They would need to be conditioned to ride and live in the outdoors for weeks at a time carrying a rider daily and living on grass rather than grain.

Conditioning 3: What physical condition would the animals be in the T2K world? They would need in my view to be rehabilitated since they would most likely have been neglected for sometime.

Sound: Horses walking make a distinctive sound, and they also ney or whinney and snort.

Those are some of the things I can see happening with returning to horses. Although I do use them in my campaigns, there is usualy some Polish Cavalry in my European games and in games in the US they are not uncommon.

[chico20854]

WWII era Soviet cavalry had horse-drawn 120mm mortar batteries and 76mm DP guns as well, so there's no reason a T2K WTO cav unit couldn't have a few 120mm mortars as well.

There were still some of those 76mm guns floating around in the Soviet war reserves, so they might be used again too!

On the old forums, I posted a TOE for a T2K Soviet/WTO Cavalry division based on the structure of a WWII Soviet cavalry division (c.1943). I will post it again if anyone's interested.

Please do!

[Raellus]

This is the WWII TOE that I used as a starting point. It's from David Glantz's Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front.

Soviet Cavalry Division c. 1943 (overall strength, 6000 personel)

Three cavalry regiments consisting of four troops each.

One artillery regiment consisting of 2 battalions of horse-drawn 120mm motrars and 1 battalion of 76mm guns.

One regiment of tanks consisting of 2 battalions of T-34s and 1 battalion of T-70s

One HQ company, one detatched cavalry battalion, one AAA battalion, one sapper company, one signals company and one services company.
_______ _______ ________

For T2K, I would scratch all of the armor, thereby eliminating a couple of hundred men. I would replace the 76mm gun battery with 82mm Vasileks (although, as Chico pointed out, some units could still be equipped with the venerable 76mm guns).

The AAA battalion would be equiped with truck or horse-towed, quad 14.5mm guns or possibly ZU-23-2s. In the absence of an enemy air threat, they would mostly be used in the anti-personel/anti-material role. I could also see one of the AAA gun batteries being supplanted by a few SA-7 Grail SAMs which could easily be carried on horseback.

Each sub-unit's strength should be reduced somewhat in order to get it down to T2K divisional strength levels.

I realize that most T2K GMs don't deal with division sized units; unfortunately, I can't break it down any smaller.

Not terribly useful, I'll admit, but perhaps it can give an enterprising GM a place to start.

[Legbreaker]

Simple question.

Which would you rather eat, horse or rat?

Now somebody try to tell me horses populations aren't going to drop drastically...

[jester]

Simple question.

Which would you rather eat, horse or rat?

Now somebody try to tell me horses populations aren't going to drop drastically...


I would venture to guess that only in some areas for the following reason.

Most horses are in rural areas away from the population centers where the starving masses who clamor for horse flesh will be. For the horses in the region of the megatropolises, yes, they will be casualties of the event as well, but also, they will be one of the first animals to be eaten too.

Now, for the ones in the country on farms and ranches, good luck! Those folks have more room to be self sustaining, they love their horses and they have guns and know how to use them. And I know many horse people who care more for thier horses than people.

As for the tens of thousands of horses in the Wild, well they are in remote and isolated areas where the starving masses won't go. And if they made it that far, well, they would be in some pretty rough shape.

[Mohoender]

Simple question.

Which would you rather eat, horse or rat?

Now somebody try to tell me horses populations aren't going to drop drastically...

Rat would be my answer. If I had a horse at hand I would keep it for other tasks. Eventually, I'll be willing to eat the guy who would have tried to carve a steak out of that horse. I only would think about eating horses in the case of outermost despair. However, I'm sure that many among the city dwellers would look at it with envy. It seems that this is going back to the subject on "State of the mind".;)

However, that horse wouldn't be available for cavalry as well. I might react in the same way toward cavalry than toward the horse eater.:D

[headquarters]

I saw the Morning after and felt that was prety realistic.(farmer shot in his field) .Even though farmers etc are better armed or more capable- it isnt going to be a hundred villains coming with gang colours and Mac-10s , more like a couple of thousand people of all ages and walks of life-children,elderly,men,mothers with babies.I dont see that desperate starving people like that will be turned away without significant slaughter.I guess it is equally hard to kill wether or not you are an urbanite -as long as the person you kill is just someone starving to death .Teenage girl maybe ?

That aside ,a horse militia troop could fight a mob of hundreds or thousands over miles of terrain and wear them down.

I guess my vote on the avalry thing is that horses have been the military advantage for thousands of years except the last 75 or 100 years or so .Once the fuel run out and our efficient smokeless powder ammo is gone -the horse people will rule again -depending on terrain imho.

But as stated -you could feed alot of people on the grazing lands for 1 horse.And imagine the time and resources going into the animals you are going to use for war -it doesnt bring food on the table even .

With the resources to train, graze and keep horses for military use in place ,I predict a big comeback from the hore cav as modern weapons and gear become extinct .But I guess only the wealthy will have it .Maybe the land owners in the rural community defending themselves?

[jester]

MOD:

I like the whole refugee vs rural community discussion, MOD can we get a new topic going to continue it?



As for Cavalry,

Lets not forget that some horses can survive on scrub. The Mongolian ponies and the U.S. Mustangs are two that come to mind. Also, toss in some of the biporducts of say grain production, or farming, a field left fallow durring regular crop rotation could be used as a field for horse or cattle grazzing.

Or areas that are to rocky or with to many hills could also be used.


As for numbers, in the Western US, there would be lots of mounted groups. With water being the more critical issue.

As for Europe, I would say a company or Troop or Squadron sized force per Division or some Brigades would be the norm and these would be used as scouting and patroling forces rather than regular combat forces. And of course the rest of the horses found would be put to work as draft animals for farming or hauling supplies which would in my view be of greater priority.

[kalos72]

So one of the big drawbacks to horse cavalry is the innate lack of heavy weapons...or the inability to utilize them while on horseback right?

What if you had saddles with like "arms" to sit a SAW on as you rode, helping stabilize the barrel?

Or maybe a mk19?

I also dabble in D&D and saw a painting of a saddle that had a brace for a heavy lance off to the side.

[kato13]

My understanding of modern cavalry (up to WWII) was that weapons were primarily fired while dismounted. The only cavalry stories I can recall from the 20th century had the units using bladed weapons when they were forced to fight when mounted.

Somewhere in the wealth of T2k material there is a discussion of the 10th man in a cavalry squad staying with horses, while the remaining 9 progress into the battle on foot. I think this would be far more common that fighting on horseback.

The importance of cavalry is to provide a short term speed boost in movement. Infantry while slower can actually cover the same (or even more) distance long term.

[rcaf_777]

What about using a horse cart or wagon for heavy weapons, see examples below

[kalos72]

When I think Cavalry from the Wild West...I see guys flying around on horseback firing their rifles as they ride. Might be mostly Hollywood there...not sure.

I will read through the board map and see about related discussions...

[kalos72]

Regarding the 10th man,my squads will need to be pretty independent.

I was thinking of a farrier type person and 2-3 "hands" to support 20-25 horses or something.

[CDAT]

So one of the big drawbacks to horse cavalry is the innate lack of heavy weapons...or the inability to utilize them while on horseback right?

What if you had saddles with like "arms" to sit a SAW on as you rode, helping stabilize the barrel?

Or maybe a mk19?

I also dabble in D&D and saw a painting of a saddle that had a brace for a heavy lance off to the side.

I could maybe see the SAW, but the MK19 is way to heavy and has way to much recoil I would think. But my understaning is the same as most of the others that modern cavalry was more like dragoons.

[kalos72]

Regarding the 10th man,my squads will need to be pretty independent.

I was thinking of a farrier type person and 2-3 "hands" to support 20-25 horses or something.

Ok so for the most part heavy weapons are out...what about 2-3 people and a farrier to watch 20-25 horses of the rest of the squad?

These squads will be long range patrols through particular counties in Texas.

[mikeo80]

What I have read about Civil War and the Indian Wars of the 1870's - 1880's,
seem to indicate that most of the time, cavalry was used for reconnaissance. J.E.B. Stuart was one of the primary officers fir this kind of work. It can be argued that the Battle of Gettysburg was a mistake because JEB went off on a Recon Raid, but did not keep General Lee informed of where he was and what he saw.

During the Civil War and beyond the cavalry would ride up, dismount, and engage the enemy. I have read that as many as 1 in 4 men were used as horse holders. The recovered evidence at Little Big Horn seems to bear this out. Custer and his men formed a long skirmish line. While the attacking Indians were at a distance, this was fine, the Springfield trap rifle had the ability to keep opponents at long range. Once the Indian fighters got closer, using terrain, the fire power of their repeating Winchesters and Henrys overwhelmed the 7th Cav. Of course being outnumbered about 9 -1 did not help.

My $0.02

Mike

[Gelrir]

For horse-holders who can lead the horses around, from the saddle, 1-in-4 or even 1-in-3 seems typical.

Managing a bunch of horses that never move might be possible for a 1-in-10 horseholder, I dunno.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RmgDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=cavalry+%22horse+holders%22&source=bl&ots=r-L2yJGLRj&sig=ybIdumHE888pwHQxwHVquQZrEb4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qor1Uu7bIZL9oASkiICQDw&ved=0CG8Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=cavalry%20%22horse%20holders%22&f=false

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=253373

I seem to recall that the late 19th century Imperial Russian cavalry used 1-in-3; that is, one mounted guy, with an un-manned horse on each side of him. I think the Osprey book on the Russo-Turkish War mentions this.

As for mounted used of weapons: certainly pistol and sabre were the weapons of the U.S. Cavalry when mounted, in the early 20th Century. That's why each cavalryman was issued a pistol. I'm not sure if mounted rifle marksmanship was ever even discussed. The 1944 manual seems to presume that rifle usage will only happen dismounted, but I haven't read every page.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM2-5.PDF

It's for an eight-man squad. Ah ha, a command on page 38: "To leave horses immobile": "All horses of one squad may be linked in a circle and left to the care of one horseholder". Of course, if you had 10-man squads, I imagine one guy could probably handle 10 horses.

--
Michael B.

[mpipes]

Your best bet is to read up on the German and Soviet cavalry on the Eastern Front in WWII. I do recall machineguns being part of their standard equipment, but I have no idea if they fired them from horseback. Carbines and SMG, yes. Those were fired from horseback. I know Soviet mounted cavalry overran German or their allied units on occasions. SS cavalry patrolled against partisans.

[Tegyrius]

I'll throw another vote for dragoons versus fighting from the saddle. One reason I haven't seen mentioned here: a horse is a bigger target than a man, and far harder to replace in most T2k theatres. Why expose your vulnerable mobility assets to direct fire?

- C.

[dragoon500ly]

Speaking only for US Cavalry tactics, one out of every four men remained with the horses to control them.

Pistols and sabers were the perferred mounted weapons, as at least one hand would be necessary to control the reins, this was also one of the reasons that cavalry men had that thick leather strap around their shoulder that was attached to the carbine, you could fire one round and then drop the carbine (leaving it dangling) and draw pistol or saber as necessary.

In modern cavalry, the troopers would ride into the area, dismount, have the horseholders lead the mounts back out of the line of fire, the dismounts would deploy as skirmishers and start fighting. If the enemy started to withdraw, the horses were brought forward, and then used to bound forwards to the next position.

With the limitations on weight that a horse can carry, support weapons would either be carried on pack horses or in wagons. Your T2000 cavalryman would have a pistol and either a SMG or an assault rifle with maybe a M203 as the largest weapon carried.

[Targan]

We've had threads before with really detailed info on horses in T2K and dragoon forces.

[Raellus]

Merged. There's some good stuff here.

I see horse cavalry as being an increasingly important arm as the Twilight War winds down to a lower intensity. Cross-country scouting would be horse cav's primary role. I agree that troopers would almost always dismount before going into combat. That said, there might be room for an occasional charge- pistols or SMGs would be the weapon of choice for this rare occurrence.

Carbines would be the standard primary arm of the trooper. They would almost always be used dismounted, but they'd be light and handy enough to maneuver and/or deploy while on horseback. Heavy weapons most often would be GLs and SAW/LSWs. Mounts, however, would need to be trained not to panic while their riders are firing while mounted or in close proximity. I think that people tend to take for granted that horses can handle that sort of noise, but the truth is that they need to be conditioned to do so.

[Raellus]

http://www.lrgaf.org/guide/Austrian%20soldier%20with%20Haflinger%20pack%20hor se%20travelling%20through%20the%20Alps.jpg

[Sith]

You may or may not have seen this, but here is the last (at least I believe so) horse cavalry field manual put out by the US Army in 1941. There is some goodness in here as it reflects some thinking in how horses would be employed on the same battlefield as armor. Keep in mind though that its authors were also seeking to justify the continued use of horsed cavalry.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/docrepository/FM2_15.pdf

[Raellus]

I don't know much about the Grey's Scouts, but they apparently operated extensively on horseback.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/fal_Greyscout1.jpg

I can't imagine that the accuracy would be any good- he'd likely be hard pressed to hit a barn door at anything over 50m, but I do think the ol' fashioned cavalry charge could still work under certain rare circumstances- like against a small irregular party caught out in the open.

http://i946.photobucket.com/albums/ad308/Tosk2009/Foro%20eGC/GreysScoutsRhodesia1970_2.jpg

[Raellus]

Interesting tactic requiring a very obedient and well trained horse. Or dead one.

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Modern-Horse-Cavalry-Scouts_.jpg

[stormlion1]

Use of Horses is a good idea as long as feed and supply chain is reasonably intact, even a lot of there care and feeding is easily doable in the field like feeding them and changing there shoes. As for the carrying of heavy equipment even that is doable if its broken down and carried by more than one horse. A Saw could be carried by a pack horse and its ammunition by two others easily enough. Not all gear was carried by individual horses after all. They had a supply train. Not sure of the numbers but I THINK I remember the 7th Calvary when they went off to Little Big Horn were supposed to have had at least a several supply carrying horses. Not that they went with Custer, I think he left them behind or they were with Benteen. He had the packs after all with the additional ammunition supply.
The big problem will be horse supply, quite a few will not survive the events that plague the world with refugees eating them, being worked to death, and general disease's and other factors like people hoarding there's to do things like travel and plowing fields. Even a Race Horse can plow a field if that's all that's available to a farmer and he will hide that horse when troops show up looking for a ride to draft.
Wish I still had that book on the 7th Calvary, it had a lot of details on the Calvary that operated during the Civil War and the Indian Wars.

[mikeo80]

Storm Lion, you are exactly correct as far as 7th Cav is concerned. Custer DID have a supply train. Relatively small, but as you said, extra ammo. In fact, the last contact from Custer was a note he sent. To quote from the note,

Benteen

Come on. Big Village.

Be quick. Bring packs.

W. W. Cooke

P.S. Bring Packs.

Custer also did away with his heavy weapons. He refused a battery of 2 - 3 Gatling guns. (there are records of both numbers, so hard to tell.)

All the weapons of the 7th Cav consisted of the Springfield Trapdoor Rifles and Colt revolvers. Custer even ordered the troops to NOT bring their sabers.

My $0.02

Mike

[Apache6]

"Calvary units" are sexy, especially the all female 2d Tennessee Cavalry Regiment formed out of dedicated horsewomen from Shelbyville Tn, the home of the Walking Horses. (They were never very successful in combat roles, they were noted as being exceptionally competent in policing and as great ambassadors, and were able to "talk down situations, where traditional units would have 'gone kinetic.' Formed in summer of 2001, the regiment had 10 squadrons, 3 in each of 3 Battalions, plus one retained as the Regimental Cmdrs direct asset. Each Squadron had 4 Calvary troops, each consisting of a Cmdr, XO and 4 10 woman squads, and small HQ, including a supply/blacksmiths wagon. At first they were armed with a wide range of civilan arms (shotguns, lever actions and bolt actions) over the winter of 2001, they were rearmed primarily with "9mm sten type SMGs, manufactured in the Middle Tennessed State University factory in Murfreesboro. At the same time a 14 woman, 60mm Mortar squad was added to each Squadron.

Despite being sexy, they are not going to have much combat power, and their value will be in reconnaissance and screening, cavalry roles, they may have to fight, but they are not going to be able to defeat equivalent units. This has been true all the way back to at least the Civil war.

- In the US in the 90s you are going to work very hard to gather together enough men who are really familiar with horses, I think that their are more females who really like horses then men (thus the 2d TN Cav above).

- Most people today, even if they own horses, don't realize how much work it takes to keep a horse functioning as a mount or a work animal. Most Americans, and I expect Western Europeans, of the 90s would be ill qualified to maintain horses, and this would result in EXTREMELY high loses of horses. This would be made worse by the fact that the horses of the period would have 'grown up' as pets, not work animals. I remember reading something about pampered horses that had worked in a brewery in Germany who were drafted as artillery animals during WWII, none of them survived the first winter in Russian.

- I had a friend who was big into both Civil War reenactment and "cowboy action shooting." He had two horses who were 'gun trained," I know Police Horses are as well, but most horses are going to spook at gunfire, and some horses cannot be 'gun trained.'

- Having listed why horses are not ideal for combat, I will add that they are going to be invaluable for courier duties, and for pulling loads. I have a horse, in the combat train, of my Marine "Company" I posted here earlier, but it mostly hauls a wagon and is sometimes used to carry messages.

- I think there would be lots of reinventing the wheel, or actually of reinventing the horse pulled plow and horse harnesses. Making these are not completely lost skills, but they are not widespread either.

- As some has said before, a lot of horses (and dogs, cats...) are going to get eaten the first winter after TDM. That will make the survivors more valuable. The question is are surviving horses used to bred more and trained for pulling plows, or organized into offensive units. I think that their will be examples of both. Farmers will vote for the first plan, military for the second.

- OK, now I've got a new adventure idea. A 'just returned from Europe unit,' infiltrating on foot to 'recover' (rustle) horses and cattle from a New America controlled county in order to bring them back to Smithville in time for the spring planting. 2 of the adventurers are experienced horseman, the rest not so much. Could be fun role playing. I can see a stuborn but brave stud horse becoming an invaluable NPC. Herding dogs would also be useful.

- Oxen, will become much more important as work animals. Your artillery pieces are as likely to be pulled by oxen as horses. That is a skill that I think is likely very close to being totally lost in U.S., though I know of one group of Oxen that are plow trained at Historic Williamsburg near Norfolk VA

- No I don't have ADHD; why do you ask? :)

[stormlion1]

Troops shooting from the back of horses are not going to be very accurate no matter what the old westerns show. Just wait a lot of ammunition really so the best use of Horse Calvary is to ride them to the destination, dismount and leave one man holding the reigns of four of five horses and send the rest forward in a line. That way the horses don't get spooked by gunfire, the horses are both protected and available, and any pack horses will be nearby carrying additional ammunition. The interesting thing will be the entire process being reinvented by survivors and people with little real knowledge of horses and horse warfare.
Making a wagon for supply's is easy to say, but actually making one will be much harder and the option of cheating by using a cut down truckbed or some such will be a option. But that's all heavy metal there and horses will quickly tire out requiring longer breaks than normal. Building a wooden wagon is an option, if one has blueprints or better yet an example to copy but unless you have power tools that's a long drawn out process. Just curing the lumber will take time!

[Raellus]

Apache6, I really like your all female 2nd Tennessee Cavalry Regiment idea.

I also like your adventure idea- good ol' fashioned horse rustlin' = good times.

As for wagon design, wood is lighter, but the value of wood as a construction material and fuel source would increase after the TDM. A cut-down truck bed would work almost just as well. Depending on the truck, it wouldn't really be that much heavier than sturdy wood construction, once all the unnecessary bits and pieces were removed. More likely would be a hybrid wagon using a cut-down truck chassis with a wooden frame. When I lived in Uruguay back in the early '90s, there were lots of these ad hoc horse or mule-drawn wagons- the drivers would do freelance garbage collection.

http://www.outthereliving.com/worldbike/SouthAmerica/Images/SouthAmerica2001/FEbruary_16_2001.jpg

On my bike ride today, I passed a father and daughter on horseback. In some parts of the U.S., horse ownership is pretty common. My town of Marana (basically a large, unincorporated suburb of Tucson) just announced the construction of a $13,000,000 rodeo grounds. In my old, more rural neighborhood, half the people on my block owned at least one horse.

-

[CDAT]

Apache6, I really like your all female 2nd Tennessee Cavalry Regiment idea.

I also like your adventure idea- good ol' fashioned horse rustlin' = good times.

As for wagon design, wood is lighter, but the value of wood as a construction material and fuel source would increase after the TDM. A cut-down truck bed would work almost just as well. Depending on the truck, it wouldn't really be that much heavier than sturdy wood construction, once all the unnecessary bits and pieces were removed. More likely would be a hybrid wagon using a cut-down truck chassis with a wooden frame. When I lived in Uruguay back in the early '90s, there were lots of these ad hoc horse or mule-drawn wagons- the drivers would do freelance garbage collection.

http://www.outthereliving.com/worldbike/SouthAmerica/Images/SouthAmerica2001/FEbruary_16_2001.jpg

On my bike ride today, I passed a father and daughter on horseback. In some parts of the U.S., horse ownership is pretty common. My town of Marana (basically a large, unincorporated suburb of Tucson) just announced the construction of a $13,000,000 rodeo grounds. In my old, more rural neighborhood, half the people on my block owned at least one horse.

-

I wish I had a photo of it, but I saw a bunch of vans that had there front window knocked out and were made in to horse (donkey) carts in Iraq.

[Canadian Army]

How about this for heavy weapons support:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/45a51404e14ca16f7076a1304fb7776d/tumblr_mpkh1dOaeL1s57vgxo1_1280.jpg
A corporal aims a Colt M1895 atop a Sri Lankan Elephant.

[mikeo80]

OMG.....Canadian Army, that is just too freaking funny....

You DID forget a spew warning....

My $0.02

Mike

[stormlion1]

Hit a few Circus's and Zoo's up. Add a little Kevlar in vital spots and maybe even some real armor in others and, yep you a have a Armored Elephant to scare the masses with. That is until you pull the trigger and find yourself just trying to stay on!

[Gelrir]

From FM 2-5, dated 1944:

The LMG squad is 8 men, with two gun crews. Each crew has three men, with four horses: three ridden, and one pack horse with gun, tripod, and ammo. Outside of the two crews are the squad leader and another pack horse driver, leading a pack horse with more ammunition. Thus: 8 men, 11 horses.

The .50 cal MG squad has 8 men, 8 riding horses, 3 pack horses, but only one gun and ammo. The #1 horse carries the gun, tripod, and 40 rounds of ammo; the #2 and #3 horses carry the rest of the ammo.

The 81mm mortar squad has 8 men, 8 riding horses, 3 pack horses. The #1 pack horse carries the mortar; #2 and #3 pack horse each have 12 mortar shells (18 shells each for short, slow moves).

A machine-gun platoon was an HQ (8 men), two LMG sections (two squads and a sergeant), a .50 cal MG section (two squads and a sergeant). 54 horses total.

An 81mm mortar platoon ws an HQ (9 men), and two mortar sections (each is two squads and a sergeant).

--
Michael b.

[dragoon500ly]

Weight of Horse Equipments and Cavalry Accouterments 1878

Bit dated J, but useful for giving an idea of just how much weight a cavalry horse could carry…

Halter: 2lbs 1oz
Watering bridle: 1lb 1.5oz
Bridle: 2lbs 13oz
Saddle: 14lbs 13.5oz
Saddle-bags: 2lbs 2oz
Filling of near-side pouch with 5 days rations: 10lbs
Filling of off-side pouch with 1pr socks, 1 pr drawers, 2 shirts, 40rds carbine ammo, toilet articles: 7lbs
8oz
Forage sack: 6oz
5 days oats for horse, carried in forage sack: 15lbs
Lariat and picket pin: 3lbs 1.5oz
Overcoat: 4lbs 6.5oz
Brush and shoe pouch: 1lb
Curry-comb and brush in near-side pocket: 1lb 8oz
2 horse shoes and 15 shoe nails in off-side pouch: 2lbs
2 Blankets (one horse and one trooper); 6lbs 14oz
Saddle cover: 1lb
Surcingle: 11.5oz
Saber and slings: 4lbs 12oz
Waist-belt and plate: 1lb
Pistol and holster: 3lbs 2oz
Carbine sling and swivel: 10lbs 4oz
Carbine cartridge box: 1lb
24 rounds of carbine ammunition: 2lbs
Pistol cartridge box: 4oz
12 rounds of pistol ammunition: 14oz
Man: 140lbs
Total weight: 240lbs 12.5oz

As you can see, things can get a bit “tight”, even replacing with modern equipment, just doesn’t leave that much room for extras. As a general rule of thumb, the US Cavalry provided a pack horse (mule) for every 8 men to carry extra rations and ammunition.

[Adm.Lee]

Regarding pet horses and the 2nd Tennessee, above: I live in a mid-sized city, and both my wife (fiancee at the time) and one of my brothers worked at horse farms outside of the city as college jobs. They worked for at least one person or family who owned the barn and riding grounds, which was staffed usually by high school and college kids. The horses would be owned by rich families-- doctors, lawyers, etc. Alternately, the grounds of a hunt club/country club would have lots of woods for riding in, as well as barns, horses, and trainers. If there are any pockets of horse ownership and horse-training expertise, places like those, on the edge of cities and their wealthier suburbs are the place to find them.

[Cdnwolf]

So in the end .... did anyone come up with combat rules involving the use of calvary.

I have a a Polish Border Guard unit mounted on horses beating the bushes looking for any survivors from the 256'th Brigade south of Lask and the characters will definately run into them sometime.

[Raellus]

Rise, dead thread! Rise!

I ran across this article on a cool website called The War Zone. The concept of horse cavalry/dragoons/mule-mobile infantry is alive and well in the year 2017.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11640/u-s-special-operators-are-ready-to-ride-into-war-on-horseback-again

[unkated]

Interesting tactic requiring a very obedient and well trained horse. Or dead one.

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Modern-Horse-Cavalry-Scouts_.jpg

US Cavalry in the West used this tactic, and yes, it did required a lot of training to get the horse to comply. A lot of cavalry horse training since the 18th Century involved getting a horse to not run off in the other direction when loud noises (like gun fire and explosions) occurred.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

the East Africa Sourcebook (maybe we start using EAS for short) has a Kenyan cavalry unit FYI

The regiment consists of a headquarters squadron, three cavalry squadrons, and a horse drawn heavy weapons squadron. It is modeled on the British Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, with each cavalry squadron, at full strength, consisting of two divisions, each of one officer and twenty four enlisted personnel, while the headquarters squadron consists of only one division. In addition, it is supported by a training squadron of one officer and thirty six enlisted men.

[unkated]

So in the end .... did anyone come up with combat rules involving the use of calvary.

I have a a Polish Border Guard unit mounted on horses beating the bushes looking for any survivors from the 256'th Brigade south of Lask and the characters will definately run into them sometime.

I'll bite...

What kind of rules are you looking for?


Movement of individual is in the movement rules.
Cavalry trained horses won't shy from gunfire; untrained horses will.
There is a quadruped hit location chart.
Man on a horse is a slightly larger target to spot than a man on foot; he can also see slightly further.
I would make anyone being charged at less than 30 m range make a CUF/initiative roll vs this large beast coming at you (mods for cover, perhaps), or break and run.


The BGB would probably have squads pushing along a front on search, with a larger troop ready to reinforce on contact. And their tactic would be to move to a short distance away, dismount, and proceed on foot into combat.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Also the question is would the cavalry be actual cavalry that fought on horseback or instead would they be more infantry that used horses to get to the fighting and then dismounted and fought on foot

In other words are the cavalry units that are the game actual trained cavalry that are trained to fight on horses that have been hardened to combat conditions - which would most likely be quite rare given that just about every unit in the game started out as mechanized infantry that converted to horses - or would they instead be dragoons like the unit in Kenya is - i.e. they use the horses to get to where they are going, then dismount and fight on foot while several members are detailed to keep the horses from bolting during the fighting?

[Apache6]

Even one man with a semi automatic rifle would destroy a lot of cavalry if they tried to make mounted assaults.

To survive units would have to fight dismounted. The horses would provide mobility advantages but would most likely be a disadvantage during the actual fight. During the American Civil War the SOP was for one out of every 4 men to be detailed to handle the horses, while the unit fought on foot.

[Olefin]

Even one man with a semi automatic rifle would destroy a lot of cavalry if they tried to make mounted assaults.

To survive units would have to fight dismounted. The horses would provide mobility advantages but would most likely be a disadvantage during the actual fight. During the American Civil War the SOP was for one out of every 4 men to be detailed to handle the horses, while the unit fought on foot.

Comes down to how they make the assault - the Italians successfully conducted a cavalry charge against Soviet troops during WWII that had machine guns and mortars - but they were highly trained cavalry

Unless you are looking at trained cavalry, with horses that have been trained for battlefields, I completely agree with you - Dragoons is definitely the way to go for fighting

[The Dark]

Comes down to how they make the assault - the Italians successfully conducted a cavalry charge against Soviet troops during WWII that had machine guns and mortars - but they were highly trained cavalry

Unless you are looking at trained cavalry, with horses that have been trained for battlefields, I completely agree with you - Dragoons is definitely the way to go for fighting

The Americans conducted a cavalry charge against tanks at Morong and drove them off with minor casualties (11 percent wounded, no dead). The unit served through the war as dismounted guerillas after eating their horses.

The Italian charge was highly outnumbered, too - it was six hundred cavalry against two thousand infantry. Cavalry casualties totaled 32. Two Soviet armored vehicles were destroyed.

[James Langham2]

Rise, dead thread! Rise!

I ran across this article on a cool website called The War Zone. The concept of horse cavalry/dragoons/mule-mobile infantry is alive and well in the year 2017.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11640/u-s-special-operators-are-ready-to-ride-into-war-on-horseback-again

A couple of really interesting bits in here - more bits to add to my article...

[Olefin]

FYI did you see the Kenyan Cav unit that was in the East Africa Sourcebook? They are fighting as dragoons and really arent made to fight from horseback.

[James Langham]

FYI did you see the Kenyan Cav unit that was in the East Africa Sourcebook? They are fighting as dragoons and really arent made to fight from horseback.

Already there in part but I need to update it to match the canon article slightly.

[Targan]

James, have you started using your original profile again or has it been hacked?

[James Langham]

James, have you started using your original profile again or has it been hacked?

Oddly I used a new machine and somehow it has pulled the original password through Google - confused.com!

[Olefin]

Some good information here on horse populations in the world in 2000 - very relevant to what might be available for horsed cavalry in the world

http://www.fao.org/tempref/AG/Reserved/DAD-Net/Rupak_Khadka_Thesis.pdf