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!! ). 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.

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 )
- 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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)!

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by headquarters

...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/Desk...geID=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]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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/~dh.../BritCav2k.htm

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.