Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2018, 04:47 AM   #151
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Your scenario involves ludicrously small numbers. If you're dealing with a tiny isolated infantry force and must use cavalry, you should be using your mobility to come at them with very superior numbers. If there's only ten guys to a side for the whole area...we're not talking even ATE militaries anymore.

Those being situations where you really shouldn't attempt such a charge, yes.
The figures were as I said arbitrary but relative and the scenario simplistic to illustrate the point.
Make it 50 calvary and 100 infantry, or 500 and 1000 the point still stands. In fact even more so when you talking about rifles that can engage at ranges of several hundred yards.
With the proviso that 100 or 1000 infantry are not going to be strung out in a line single file of course. Once again the point being because of the rifle's advantage in effective range those infantry weather they be 10, 100 or 1000 will be more able to bring their fire onto the cavalry even if the cavalry try and concentrate onto a small part of the infantry and away from the bulk of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
This comparison of range you're doing seems a complete red herring. Charging cavalry are not an ineffective means of creating a fire umbrella, they're a questionably effective means of assaulting a position.
Yes that's my point, when your charging into a fire umbrella that's large enough to reach you weather you concentrate your forces at a single point in the line or not, you lose half the advantage of concentrating your force. And even if you make contact with enough left to beat the infantry at the point you were aiming at, you are then in a situation where the rest of the infantry can still engage you (by shooting at range) but you can't engage them without repositioning.

Now as you say a questionably effective means of assaulting a position in that situation, but that's the point isn't it! Because that's what a cavalry charge is. This is what the whole tangent has been about showing!

EDIT: hang on reading you again are you saying that cavalry not being able to create a fire umbrella is not relevant to weather or not they can effectively charge into one and do what they intend to do? If so I disagree as that is the disadvantage they will be facing when they try and charge in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
You might as well point out how hard it is for a horseman at the gallop to deliver over-the-horizon fire support.
If you like, I agree they would indeed be bad at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
World War I trench raiders were fond of pistols, submachine guns, grenades, and even melee weapons. All of those were vastly inferior in effective range to the ubiquitous bolt-action rifles...
Yes and since that was a context of tight quarters were range wasn't a factor so an advantage in it was irrelevant, as well making a 6ft long rifle & bayonet an awkward weapon to use that would be true. Only outside of that context or similar one it's not relevant. And since were talking cavalry we haven't actually been talking about fighting trenches!

Similarly when clearing out VC & NVA tunnels in Vietnam 65 years later full length rifles were also not great, and of course neither were horses ;-)!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Which was going into a comparison of performance at range.
Yes that's the point, and was what was being discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
If that's what you're worried about, shooting from a horse and shooting a pistol are both so obviously wrong as to need no discussion, but that's not what shock troops are chiefly concerned with...
Well OK in terms of the discussion I agree (mostly, pistol & sabre still give you options in an charge/assault that sabre alone won't). So what exactly were you contesting in my post 130 in the context of that post and ericthered's post 129 it was responding to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Žorkell View Post
Furthermore, FWIW, "Mad Minute" was an expectation in training not in the field.
True but like most training it had a practical side to it, being able to shoot quickly and accurately is a good thing after all, and the BEF's rifle fire was well regarded.

But ultimately my original point was troops in 1914 with bolt action rifles were firing more accurately, faster at way longer ranges than their predecessors 100 years earlier were able to with their muskets. (Weather or not the BEF we demonstrably better at it than their French, German, Russian counterparts, or the British infantry in Napoleonic times training to do one more volley a minute that some others).

Ultimately I was responding to the claim that bolt action rifles weren't enough to defeat cavalry, only machines guns were.

But actually bolt action rifle fire was actually pretty damn good, and famously sometimes mistaken for machine gun fire which kind of indicates that in terms of felt effect there sometimes wasn't much in it!

Of course what you can do with bolt action rifles you can with far fewer machine guns! But the point was even if you don't have machine guns you can still do it with Rifles.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-10-2018 at 09:24 AM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 06:56 AM   #152
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
The big thing is that spec ops operators aren't numerous enough to function as infantry except on a very small scale and for a very short time.
As far as I can tell, the effectiveness of special operators is much less than their increased cost. You spend 10x as much to train and supply a special operator, and you get maybe 2x or 3x the effectiveness. For any operation where you can add more bodies easily, it's just more efficient to add more bodies.

Special operators become valuable when it's hard to add more bodies, which is why they're used for clandestine and covert operations. If you can only sneak 30 guys past the enemy air defenses to rescue the hostages, you want them to be the best 30 guys you can get. But if you can send 300 guys to assault the enemy airfield for the same cost as sending your best 30 guys, the 300 guys are the way to go.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:15 AM   #153
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
The figures were as I said arbitrary but relative and the scenario simplistic to illustrate the point.
Make it 50 calvary and 100 infantry, or 500 and 1000 the point still stands. In fact even more so when you talking about rifles that can engage at ranges of several hundred yards.
With the proviso that 100 or 1000 infantry are not going to be strung out in a line single file of course. Once again the point being because of the rifle's advantage in effective range those infantry weather they be 10, 100 or 1000 will be more able to bring their fire onto the cavalry even if the cavalry try and concentrate onto a small part of the infantry and away from the bulk of them.
But you don't get that proviso. 100 times as many infantry will be holding 100 times as much front.

If they don't, you don't charge the huge strongpoint, you ride around it and hit all the places they don't have people because they stacked them all up on this one spot.

(Also, if they are stacked up in depth that's going to prevent those who are much to the back from contributing fire unless they've got great terrain. Shooting over your own people is generally a problem! On the other hand they'll be right there to ruin your day if you did get your charge driven home.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
EDIT: hang on reading you again are you saying that cavalry not being able to create a fire umbrella is not relevant to weather or not they can effectively charge into one and do what they intend to do? If so I disagree as that is the disadvantage they will be facing when they try and charge in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yes and since that was a context of tight quarters were range wasn't a factor so an advantage in it was irrelevant, as well making a 6ft long rifle & bayonet an awkward weapon to use that would be true. Only outside of that context or similar one it's not relevant. And since were talking cavalry we haven't actually been talking about fighting trenches!
A cavalry charge is a context of close, if not tight, quarters. From the perspective of cavalry weapons at least. If the cavalry fails to get right up to the enemy, then the charge is a failure regardless of what weapons they're carrying. If it does get right up to the enemy, then they aren't shooting at long range.

The enemy's ability to shoot at range does hinder your charge, but you having the ability to shoot at range (beyond long melee) wouldn't do anything to help it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yes that's the point, and was what was being discussed.



Well OK in terms of the discussion I agree (mostly, pistol & sabre still give you options in an charge/assault that sabre alone won't). So what exactly were you contesting in my post 130 in the context of that post and ericthered's post 129 it was responding to?
I see nothing in post 129 that makes performance at range 'what was being discussed'. You started treating it as if it was important in 130, and my reply is largely that doing so is completely wrong.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 11:57 AM   #154
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
But you don't get that proviso. 100 times as many infantry will be holding 100 times as much front.
Not necessarily that could just be more closely spaced remember the figures were abstract for the purposes of the scenario,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
If they don't, you don't charge the huge strongpoint, you ride around it and hit all the places they don't have people because they stacked them all up on this one spot.
Ideally yes, but remember were talking about "all else being equal situation", of course you try and stack the deck so your more likely to win, but the point that has been made time and time again is that given the inherent imbalance and disadvantages cavalry faces against C20th infantry it becomes harder and harder to arrange this, and the number of situations where you can do this get smaller and smaller.

Also since were talking about cavalry as an effective force for charging and defeating infantry, if they only charge where the infantry isn't, then they don't really end up effectively charging and defeating much infantry do they? Which is actually pretty much shown in the history of the C20th, they were there doing stuff, but they tended to spend their time not forming lining up and charging infantry with thunder of hooves and blare of bugles.

I.e there is an inherent issue if your job it to charge and overrun infantry if you have major difficulties and require special circumstance in order to pull of actually charging and overrunning infantry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
(Also, if they are stacked up in depth that's going to prevent those who are much to the back from contributing fire unless they've got great terrain. Shooting over your own people is generally a problem!
Well yes but since C20th infantry tend not to line up in firing lines but rather tend to match the terrain and 1000 infantry are not going to deployed on a postage stamp etc there's a bit more scope for not shooting the front row in their back. If nothing else 500 cavalry are a big target, and unless were talking about some ninja cavalry you probably see them coming from a way off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
On the other hand they'll be right there to ruin your day if you did get your charge driven home.)
Quite, and that was my earlier point you either spread out and try hit them all at once in order to have them all engaged (but as you say lose the benefit of concentration of force, this is especially bad when your outnumbered) or you concentrate your force and then get hit from all those infantry you didn't engage even if you managed to get into contact with a few of their mates. Because as per the points range etc while you need to be in close contact (HTH), the infantry don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
A cavalry charge is a context of close, if not tight, quarters. From the perspective of cavalry weapons at least. If the cavalry fails to get right up to the enemy, then the charge is a failure regardless of what weapons they're carrying. If it does get right up to the enemy, then they aren't shooting at long range.

The enemy's ability to shoot at range does hinder your charge, but you having the ability to shoot at range (beyond long melee) wouldn't do anything to help it.
The bit in bold is the key point, we're not just interested in that "perspective", we're interested in how infantry with rifles and cavalry "perspectives" interact together. And either way you are wrong it's not a context of "close if not tight quarters" because you have to get there. Cavalry might fight in close quarters when it reaches it's target, but it tends to operate in an open context when getting there.

Your point seems to be predicated only on what happens when the cavalry are actually swinging their sabres at the infantry they are in contact with. But the point that's relevant for the actual out come is actually is those infantry have been shooting at them for some time before that potentially happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
I see nothing in post 129 that makes performance at range 'what was being discussed'. You started treating it as if it was important in 130, and my reply is largely that doing so is completely wrong.

OK I think it clearly was there, more over it was what we had been discussing for several exchanges before you posted in response to me. And to your point about range not being important (an odd point to make since you just asserted it wasn't being discussed) what can I say you are wrong please see above and umpteen posts about that.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-10-2018 at 12:46 PM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:14 PM   #155
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Not necessarily that could just be more closely spaced remember the figures were abstract for the purposes of the scenario,
Wasn't much of the purpose of the scenario putting forth your claim that the infantry could support each other along the line? Not putting them along the line takes that right out of play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Also since were talking about cavalry as an effective force for charging and defeating infantry, if they only charge where the infantry isn't, then they don't really end up effectively charging and defeating much infantry do they? Which is actually pretty much shown in the history of the C20th, they were there doing stuff, but they tended to spend their time not forming lining up and charging infantry with thunder of hooves and blare of bugles.

I.e there is an inherent issue if your job it to charge and overrun infantry if you have major difficulties and require special circumstance in order to pull of actually charging and overrunning infantry.
There's few if any periods and certainly no modern (including early modern) period where the role of cavalry was to charge headlong into the strongest possible concentration of enemy infantry. That's a really bad strawman. They deliver concentrated strikes to weak points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Well yes but since C20th infantry tend not to line up in firing lines but rather tend to match the terrain and 1000 infantry are not going to deployed on a postage stamp etc there's a bit more scope for not shooting the front row in their back. If nothing else 500 cavalry are a big target, and unless were talking about some ninja cavalry you probably see them coming from a way off.
If you're deployed in depth it's not so that the people in the back can somehow shoot over the ones in front (which remains a seriously problematic move when the front troops are prone) but so that you've got reinforcements and positions already in place in case the enemy breaks through the initial line.

Also, the enemy would have to be an idiot to hit you with a cavalry charge at a point where that is the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
The bit in bold is the key point, we're not just interested in that "perspective", we're interested in how infantry with rifles and cavalry "perspectives" interact together. And either way you are wrong it's not a context of "close if not tight quarters" because you have to get there. Cavalry might fight in close quarters when it reaches it's target, but it tends to operate in an open context when getting there.

Your point seems to be predicated only on what happens when the cavalry are actually swinging their sabres at the infantry they are in contact with. But the point that's relevant for the actual out come is actually is those infantry have been shooting at them for some time before that potentially happens.
The point is that it does not matter how much range the cavalry weapons do or don't have because they will be used at close range regardless. Range is a property that matters for the infantry weapon, but not for the cavalry weapon. The cavalry stat it is meaningful to compare against infantry range is charge speed.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:13 PM   #156
Minuteman37
 
Minuteman37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Two cents to add to the historical cavalry debate.

This won't help a whole lot for the viability of Cavalry charges in real life, but for a game using GURPS you need to look at the underlying mechanics.

Are mass fired bolt-action rifles enough to render cavalry obsolete, or is that something only accomplished by the mass adoption of the machine gun?

I'd suggest agreeing upon a machine gun that no sells calvary charges and seeing just how much massed bolt-action fire you'd need to equate that firepower.

again, just my two cents.
Minuteman37 is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:38 PM   #157
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minuteman37 View Post
Two cents to add to the historical cavalry debate.

This won't help a whole lot for the viability of Cavalry charges in real life, but for a game using GURPS you need to look at the underlying mechanics.

Are mass fired bolt-action rifles enough to render cavalry obsolete, or is that something only accomplished by the mass adoption of the machine gun?

I'd suggest agreeing upon a machine gun that no sells calvary charges and seeing just how much massed bolt-action fire you'd need to equate that firepower.

again, just my two cents.
Depends on what you mean by obsolete. Do you mean, "Tactically marginalized" or do you mean,"so useless that it isn't even worth the bother of investing assets that can be used for them"? Cavalry charges were not made obsolete by the machine gun. They did not take place in the Western front in WWI but then nobody made a cavalry charge on the lines of Torres Vedres either so it is not as if that was something knew. Cavalry charges on prepared positions that thick just aren't something you do. Cavalry charges did take place when someone thought they could get away with it, just like infantry charges did, and the occasional success in both cases proves that officers who made said judgement were not always just pigheaded tactical romantics.

In Eastern Europe in both world wars cavalry saw plentiful use as light dragoons. When there was a good time to charge(such as a lucky break that allowed them to cause a cascade failure in the supports), naturally they did it.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 05:01 PM   #158
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

We can figure out bolt action rifle vs cavalry charge in GURPS reasonably easily.

We'll assume a 400 yard charge and the 7.62mm bolt-action rifle on Basic p.279. We'll assume a cavalry horse (Move 8/16, BL 96), and that the rider (including gear and saddle) has a total weight exceeding 192 lb, so Move is 9.6, we'll call it 10 for simplicity. Our hypothetical gunners will aim for 4 seconds and fire. Since we only have 5+1 shots, we either wait to start shooting until 300 yards, or we have to reload once; we'll assume we start shooting at 300 yards, so we have shots at 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, and 50 yards, or to simplify range/speed charge stuff, 290, 240, 190, 140, 90, and 40 yards. We are shooting at horses, so all shots start with a +9 modifier (+1 for SM, +5 for Acc, +3 for 4s aim time). Total modifiers are:
290 yards: -4
240 yards: -4
190 yards: -3
140 yards: -2
90 yards: -1
40 yards: +1

For a skill 12 shooter (generic trained), our hit chances are 8-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, and 13-. Expected number of hits is 2.8. The horses have dodge 8, which will cut the expected number of hits to 2.1.

This will not end well for the cavalry.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 06:21 PM   #159
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
We can figure out bolt action rifle vs cavalry charge in GURPS reasonably easily.

We'll assume a 400 yard charge and the 7.62mm bolt-action rifle on Basic p.279. We'll assume a cavalry horse (Move 8/16, BL 96), and that the rider (including gear and saddle) has a total weight exceeding 192 lb, so Move is 9.6, we'll call it 10 for simplicity. Our hypothetical gunners will aim for 4 seconds and fire. Since we only have 5+1 shots, we either wait to start shooting until 300 yards, or we have to reload once; we'll assume we start shooting at 300 yards, so we have shots at 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, and 50 yards, or to simplify range/speed charge stuff, 290, 240, 190, 140, 90, and 40 yards. We are shooting at horses, so all shots start with a +9 modifier (+1 for SM, +5 for Acc, +3 for 4s aim time). Total modifiers are:
290 yards: -4
240 yards: -4
190 yards: -3
140 yards: -2
90 yards: -1
40 yards: +1

For a skill 12 shooter (generic trained), our hit chances are 8-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, and 13-. Expected number of hits is 2.8. The horses have dodge 8, which will cut the expected number of hits to 2.1.

This will not end well for the cavalry.
All out Attack (Determined) and braced should give +1 each.

Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-10-2018 at 06:33 PM.
sir_pudding is offline  
Old 01-10-2018, 06:31 PM   #160
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
All out Attack Determined and braced should give +1 each.
Good point. Increase average hits to 4.2, or 3.1 after dodge. Note that target selection is going to be a problem, there is a high probability of multiple people aiming at the same person, which will reduce effectiveness, but it's still not good for cavalry.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.