Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cavalry in T2K

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cavalry in T2K

    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):



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

  • #2
    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)!
    A generous and sadistic GM,
    Brandon Cope

    http://copeab.tripod.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Horse Cav

      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

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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.


            FAOSTAT provides free access to food and agriculture data for over 245 countries and territories and covers all FAO regional groupings from 1961 to the most recent year available.


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

            Comment


            • #7
              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
              Runion 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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.phpp=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.
                If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

                Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

                Mors ante pudorem

                Comment


                • #9
                  This link might be of interest for this topic...

                  Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Kato

                        Your numbers make me look more closely at horse population and the least you can say is that they are unreliable at best . 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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mohoender
                            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/pres...ustry-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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well I know horse owners in this area that have doubled their numbers in the past year... the mares all foaled

                              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.

                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X