01-10-2018, 04:47 AM | #151 | ||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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 ;-)! Yes that's the point, and was what was being discussed. Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
01-10-2018, 06:56 AM | #152 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
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 |
|
01-10-2018, 11:15 AM | #153 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||
01-10-2018, 11:57 AM | #154 | ||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
||||||
01-10-2018, 01:14 PM | #155 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||
01-10-2018, 04:13 PM | #156 |
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
|
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. |
01-10-2018, 04:38 PM | #157 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
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 |
|
01-10-2018, 05:01 PM | #158 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
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. |
01-10-2018, 06:21 PM | #159 | |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-10-2018 at 06:33 PM. |
|
01-10-2018, 06:31 PM | #160 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|