Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

If you are referencing the stuff by S.L.A Marshall (post WW2) you have to be a bit careful it was to be blunt a bit overstated.

If nothing else even Marshall made allowance for situations were there was an immediate threat to life that you had to shoot your way out off (such as cavalry bearing down on you, that will only be driven off or stopped by weight of fire)

Yeah, some of the statistics given are a little eyebrow raising. But the principle itself is never disputed: people have a hard time shooting other people, a far harder time than normal targets.

The cavalry charge does alter that, but it also triggers all sorts of other issues. And anyways, my point isn't that the charge is workable for that reason, its that a RPG simulations of mass combat tend to give very wonky results.

Thing is with that units of cavalry are not exactly stealthy ..

Either way if you crunch those numbers most of the damage is done as the range reduces (as the shots become easier). So actually once the range closes you can start increasing your rate of fire by shaving off some of those extra aim actions that are only bringing you an extra +1 each. I don't think it's a massive stretch to imagine the temptation to increase rate of fire at a slight cost in accuracy as those big chaps with big swords start getting closer and closer to you ;-)!

*and while yes in theory cavalry might be able to sneak up and surprise someone from cover and tight terrain, but they also risk having the same done to them as well (cover works in both directions) and well again cavalry are not that sneaky

I'm going to take issue with the claim that cavalry isn't stealthy. Cavalry was historically used for reconnaissance, which is in large part finding the enemy without him finding you. Cavalry is more likely to be the unit scouting, and they can use superior speed to make enemy identification of them unlikely. Yes, infantry is easier to conceal than horses, but proper doctrine can counter that advantage with mobility.

20th Century battles took place on the most artificial of terrain: farmer's fields. Flat, unobstructed ground with awesome sight lines and a dearth of cover. This is not normal. The wasteland is likely to have lots of vegetation, and a fair amount of built up vegetation.

Your point about doing most of the damage is the last part of the charge is good.

12 is base line professional. I agree not all troops would have it, but to assume less is to assume your fighting less than average troops. Which yeah I agree is a good situation to be in, but a bit of an assumption that you'll be in it.

sorry, I meant to imply that your typical target for these attacks aren't professionals, not that professional soldiers can't shoot. Neither mass mobilization armies nor wasteland scavengers will be professionals. Though you will have some better shots in there.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Yeah, some of the statistics given are a little eyebrow raising. But the principle itself is never disputed: people have a hard time shooting other people, a far harder time than normal targets.

Well actually it is kind of disputed in terms of soldiers shooting at soldiers (but this is a complex subject, and it's not all 100% wrong and might be a tangent to far!)

Originally Posted by ericthered

The cavalry charge does alter that, but it also triggers all sorts of other issues. And anyways, my point isn't that the charge is workable for that reason, its that a RPG simulations of mass combat tend to give very wonky results.

Fair enough, although I would say in GURPS terms a lot of that is tied up in not getting those non combat bonuses.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm going to take issue with the claim that cavalry isn't stealthy. Cavalry was historically used for reconnaissance, which is in large part finding the enemy without him finding you. Cavalry is more likely to be the unit scouting, and they can use superior speed to make enemy identification of them unlikely. Yes, infantry is easier to conceal than horses, but proper doctrine can counter that advantage with mobility.

Well I'd say reconnaissance by Cavalry tended to involve taking advantage of their long legs in open terrain to spot from far away and report back in time for it to matter (which they can do because they are fast), rather than sneaking about in woods at close range. A more modern day equivalent might be light fast armoured cars etc, not exactly stealthy in terms of ninja quiet tiptoeing through woods at close range but still discrete in terms of larger groups of troops and vehicles moving about!

And scouts tended to operate as very small units as you cover more ground both in terms of speed and in terms of splitting up to cover more directions, and of course you are harder to spot.

I.e 1 or 2 horsemen are a lot harder to spot than 50 or 500 of them. And remember you are talking about getting to within a 300-400 yards with a combat unit.

Originally Posted by ericthered

20th Century battles took place on the most artificial of terrain: farmer's fields. Flat, unobstructed ground with awesome sight lines and a dearth of cover. This is not normal. The wasteland is likely to have lots of vegetation, and a fair amount of built up vegetation.

Well OK, I think I'd hesitate to say it will all be like that, and even if the forests do reclaim the land that it will actually favor cavalry. Historically even when cavalry was a more active force it tended not to do too well in dense vegetation.

Originally Posted by ericthered

Your point about doing most of the damage is the last part of the charge is good.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by ericthered

sorry, I meant to imply that your typical target for these attacks aren't professionals, not that professional soldiers can't shoot. Neither mass mobilization armies nor wasteland scavengers will be professionals. Though you will have some better shots in there.

Fair enough, yes I definitely agree if they are charging less skilled militia types it will be easier than if they're charging more skilled types. But to go back to earlier tangest in the thread equipment does compensate at times. Like i said even if you knock a point of skill off from those numbers its still not looking great for our horsemen.

[ericthered]

Anyway, I'm wrapping up my part in the cavalry tangent, I think its gone as far as it will go.

If I have 500 men to equip in the wasteland, I'd jump at the chance to equip some of them as dragoons. I personally would also give them sabers and pistols and teach them close combat tactics. Its a useful tool to have in your bag, even if you only use it to cow the equivalent of peasants with pitchforks. I certainly would never use the charge exclusively, but in the right terrain I'd encourage the commander to keep an eye out for the right moments.

It seems the OP will have lots of bullets to go around though!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Anyway, I'm wrapping up my part in the cavalry tangent, I think its gone as far as it will go.

Fair enough I've posted more than enough on it myself!

Originally Posted by ericthered

If I have 500 men to equip in the wasteland, I'd jump at the chance to equip some of them as dragoons. I personally would also give them sabers and pistols and teach them close combat tactics. Its a useful tool to have in your bag, even if you only use it to cow the equivalent of peasants with pitchforks. I certainly would never use the charge exclusively, but in the right terrain I'd encourage the commander to keep an eye out for the right moments.

It seems the OP will have lots of bullets to go around though!

I agree, if nothing else you have flexibility, you can travel quickly when mounted, you can dismount and fight on foot and yep as you say maybe you find a situation where a cavalry charge is just the ticket then you can do that as well. Scattering peasants with pitch forks has always been a job for chaps on horses!

The down side is in a potentially resource strapped ATE scenario person for person you're more resource intensive than infantry, but well everything is a trade off after all!

And even if it takes resources to keep a horse fed and healthy, in an ATE scenario where infrastructure and technology is limited it might be that horses are still the efficient mode of transport anyway!

Cheers

TD

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You're only getting off one shot or maybe two during the charge. And your acc is lower. So obviously you're going to produce enormously weaker results.

The usual was to wait until the cavalry was almost too close to break off (but not so close that they couldn't - that would defeat the purpose), and to have bayonets already fixed. Horses aren't especially keen on ramming themselves onto bayonets at the best of times, and doing so a couple of seconds after their formation has just taken a well-aimed point-blank musket volley is not even close to 'the best of times'.

Most cavalry charges against prepared infantry in the 'Napoleonic Period' didn't strike home, but broke and ran around them. The preferred infantry target for a charge was infantry locked in a fight with other infantry and thus unable to form squares, or which had been well worked over by artillery (and thus had low numbers and shaky morale) or was still being threatened by artillery (and thus really, really didn't want to have to form a square as squares were very vulnerable to artillery).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm going to take issue with the claim that cavalry isn't stealthy. Cavalry was historically used for reconnaissance, which is in large part finding the enemy without him finding you. Cavalry is more likely to be the unit scouting, and they can use superior speed to make enemy identification of them unlikely.

Cavalry on reconnaissance is small units, usually travelling with decent spacing between each horse. It's very different from a large unit moving into position for a charge. Yes, from time to time a cavalry unit will manage to surprise or ambush an infantry unit and be able to charge from fairly close range. Usually that's not how it works though, and horses with riders are bigger and taller than infantry on foot, and thus are harder to hide and easier to spot.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And even if it takes resources to keep a horse fed and healthy, in an ATE scenario where infrastructure and technology is limited it might be that horses are still the efficient mode of transport anyway!

Except when you're using the horses intensively, they can be grazed on land that isn't useful for cultivating crops. Thus they're not competing directly with humans for food, but indirectly by reducing the number of sheep/goats/cows you can run. Unless populations are high enough that people are fighting over farmland, rather than for power over each other, etc., I doubt that grazing land will be the main limitation on the number of horses available. Manpower to raise, train, and keep them will be - and for that they'll be competing with everything else.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Except when you're using the horses intensively, they can be grazed on land that isn't useful for cultivating crops. Thus they're not competing directly with humans for food, but indirectly by reducing the number of sheep/goats/cows you can run. Unless populations are high enough that people are fighting over farmland, rather than for power over each other, etc., I doubt that grazing land will be the main limitation on the number of horses available. Manpower to raise, train, and keep them will be - and for that they'll be competing with everything else.

True, and I guess in ATE you're not going to be relying really specialised horse like thoroughbreds and shire horse that need specialised diets.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, and I guess in ATE you're not going to be relying really specialised horse like thoroughbreds and shire horse that need specialised diets.

Central Asians tended to campaign on horses that could take grass rather then fodder. In point of fact one of the things that stopped them was getting to terrain where grass was harder to come by.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Central Asians tended to campaign on horses that could take grass rather then fodder. In point of fact one of the things that stopped them was getting to terrain where grass was harder to come by.

Yep, I have to say I had that specific advantage in mind when I thought of efficient transport option in an ATE scenario!