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 01-09-2018, 09:46 AM   #131
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
A cavalry charge that doesn't stick in (fairly) close order gets strung out and destroyed as they arrive piecemeal unless they outnumber their opponents. You also lose that shock effect. So OK they may not have been charging as tight as some of their illustrious predecessors* by they were still charging as a pretty tight group.

.....

They weren't that close together and more importantly for the point they were firing from prone or rest from the cover they had.
The relative terms "close" and "far" are getting a real work out in this discussion!

I expect that 1900 infantry was usually deployed spaced six or so feet from each other in an engagement, perhaps closer if a charging foe was expected to reach them and engage in melee (be that folks without many guns or a european bayonet rush). Cavalry I expect would stay within shouting distance of the entire unit.

Quote:
But OK look to go back to the original point did your further research uncover lots of hitherto unknown instance of successful cavalry charges in WW2 (or even WW1) that would change the over point that cavalry charging in was not a significant thing or effective tactic in the C20th. Or we really just nibbling around with very fringe combinations of things that might once in blue moon give the cavalry charge enough of advantage to be successfully pulled off against C20th rifle units ;-)?

(don't get me wrong I've done more than my share of nibbling around with fringe combinations in my time on tsi forum!)
Its fringe. I looked further into the situations I knew about, not for new ones. The trick is that isolated non-fortified riffle units ARE fringe. World War 1 saw extensive use of fortifications and World War 2 saw extensive use of machine guns. If either are present, the tactic isn't viable.

My argument is that wastelanders won't know that, and they won't be able to get their hands on machine guns, and depending on the exact setting, the kind of ammo they need to stop the charges

Quote:
OK the BEF were good but they weren't that good (and the comparison was to 3 volleys a minute which itself was also better then average for the period in time, the same organisational context being vaguely in effect). The point being were taking a huge increase in firepower and effective range of fire for infantry with no similar increase for cavalry charges.
If that's your point, then taken. I've haven't said this yet, but cavalry going up against repeating riffles doesn't want wide open spaces. It wants a wide open front with unoccupied territory and enough cover that infantry finds itself engaging at fairly close ranges.

Quote:
Yeah I think these are good points, although I would say France and Germany couldn't maintain that level of mobiliation.

and the on the function on someone else's economy point I know what you mean, but if you don't start functioning on your economy in this regard you can only fight for als long as your cache lasts.
oh, certainly not maintainable at all. I was looking for historical extremes that demonstrated maximums. Its probably doable in a short defense or a raid.

The running out of someone else's economy is a good point. Eventually you've got to switch over to producing your own stuff. Which probably makes building big stable polities that much harder.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic

Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!
ericthered is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:27 AM   #132
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
The relative terms "close" and "far" are getting a real work out in this discussion!
True enough ;-)!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I expect that 1900 infantry was usually deployed spaced six or so feet from each other in an engagement, perhaps closer if a charging foe was expected to reach them and engage in melee (be that folks without many guns or a european bayonet rush).
I think it's going very much depend on the position, a nice defensive trench with firing steps and sandbags and enough protected positions to allow that, then yeah OK (but remember those trenches were long and you've only got so many bodies to fill them). More open terrain you set up where you can get cover. Of course as an aside to the main point if cavalry are charging trenches then they're in big trouble anyway!

Anyway the point being if you have an effective range of 300 yards you don't need to be standing 6ft part to concentrate fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Cavalry I expect would stay within shouting distance of the entire unit.
Well shouting distance can be quite short on a battlefield, but either way I think that along way from previous centuries "knee to knee" (yes this is a slight exaggeration by reference to way earlier period)



Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Its fringe. I looked further into the situations I knew about, not for new ones. The trick is that isolated non-fortified riffle units ARE fringe. World War 1 saw extensive use of fortifications and World War 2 saw extensive use of machine guns. If either are present, the tactic isn't viable.

My argument is that wastelanders won't know that, and they won't be able to get their hands on machine guns, and depending on the exact setting, the kind of ammo they need to stop the charges
OK but we back at the point about weather machine gun were the main cause of cavalry's removal, and as you say we are talking fring so I suggest we leave it there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
If that's your point, then taken. I've haven't said this yet, but cavalry going up against repeating riffles doesn't want wide open spaces. It wants a wide open front with unoccupied territory and enough cover that infantry finds itself engaging at fairly close ranges.
TBH I'm not sure how your going to get a wide open front with unoccupied territory but that also has enough cover for cavalry unit to cover hop and get within close range.

However cover hoping to close range is quite hard for cavalry who are rather big and noticeable, especially as they have to then form up for the charge



Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
oh, certainly not maintainable at all. I was looking for historical extremes that demonstrated maximums. Its probably doable in a short defense or a raid.

Yep, certainly in defence where at last you don't have to send all your people long distance and you enemy is coming to your population centres

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
The running out of someone else's economy is a good point. Eventually you've got to switch over to producing your own stuff. Which probably makes building big stable polities that much harder.
Yep, stability of supply is a big thing (and it's also why even today in a global marketplace countries tend to get a bit prickly about being dependent on sources of essential supplies outside their direct control)
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:42 PM   #133
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
A cavalry charge that doesn't stick in (fairly) close order gets strung out and destroyed as they arrive piecemeal unless they outnumber their opponents. You also lose that shock effect. So OK they may not have been charging as tight as some of their illustrious predecessors* by they were still charging as a pretty tight group.
If you're hitting close-order infantry, probably, but your whole argument started from modern infantry (outside fortifications) spreading out in cover. That greatly reduces the strength per frontage and shock resistance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Pistol vs. sabre not sure it makes that much difference, if nothing else earlier cavalry also had the pistols of the day, and well to be frank pistol range in combat situations ain't great at the best of times, it doesn't improve when you are charging on a horse!
A semi-auto or even to some extent a revolver is enormously superior to earlier pistols, and can largely replace a melee weapon in the way earlier pistols really could not.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:52 PM   #134
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
The relative terms "close" and "far" are getting a real work out in this discussion!

I expect that 1900 infantry was usually deployed spaced six or so feet from each other in an engagement, perhaps closer if a charging foe was expected to reach them and engage in melee (be that folks without many guns or a european bayonet rush). Cavalry I expect would stay within shouting distance of the entire unit.



Its fringe. I looked further into the situations I knew about, not for new ones. The trick is that isolated non-fortified riffle units ARE fringe. World War 1 saw extensive use of fortifications and World War 2 saw extensive use of machine guns. If either are present, the tactic isn't viable.

My argument is that wastelanders won't know that, and they won't be able to get their hands on machine guns, and depending on the exact setting, the kind of ammo they need to stop the charges



If that's your point, then taken. I've haven't said this yet, but cavalry going up against repeating riffles doesn't want wide open spaces. It wants a wide open front with unoccupied territory and enough cover that infantry finds itself engaging at fairly close ranges.



oh, certainly not maintainable at all. I was looking for historical extremes that demonstrated maximums. Its probably doable in a short defense or a raid.

The running out of someone else's economy is a good point. Eventually you've got to switch over to producing your own stuff. Which probably makes building big stable polities that much harder.
Cavalry in the twentieth century was basically light dragoons; a way to get recon troops or infantry to a place where there was a shortage of fuel, a forbidding terrain, or whatever. Cavalry charges did take place, more often in fact then the uninitiated would have believed. But those were special circumstances. For instance in the Polish-Soviet War a surprising amount of work was gotten done with saber and even lance simply because not enough modern small arms had been issued to either side.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:56 PM   #135
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by tshiggins View Post
What do you mean by "fine"? The areas you describe mostly consist of failed states rife with anarchy, wholly incapable of expansion -- or even feeding their own people. Those areas have no good leaders, no professional military organizations, no industrial capacity to speak of, and no capacity for self-defense against a motivated and even halfway-competent conqueror.

The lack of social order is why everybody has to be armed, and why all the armed people are (at best) street thugs. They're not soldiers, and any actual soldier would find the comparison insulting.

The best description of those areas are that they've deteriorated to a state of nature, where the hand of each is turned against all the rest, and life is "...poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

That is a good model for a survival AtE game, but it's not the scenario described by the OP. If they faced the sort of warlord he describes, any who didn't prostrate themselves and beg for mercy would get turned into fertilizer, in short order.

As a matter of fact, conquering such areas is probably how he got the territory he now controls and, even though he's a tyrant, he may enjoy popular support in those regions. He's actually created a stable social and economic order (albeit an oppressive one) that allows people to actually feed their children, most of the time.
A good model would be China, Russia, and Eastern Europe between the World Wars. While there were no burnt out cities smoking with radiation, much of this time period has a "Mad Max" kind of feel to it.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:11 PM   #136
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
If you're hitting close-order infantry, probably, but your whole argument started from modern infantry (outside fortifications) spreading out in cover. That greatly reduces the strength per frontage and shock resistance...
Yep but in order to hit the same number of them you also have to spread out your charging frontage and thus reduce strength per frontage and your concentration of force. But concentration of force isn't a problem for the infantry who are projecting their force via rifles and can all shoot you even in their dispersed formation (well so long as they LOS).



OK basic scenario using nice round figures and arbitrary but relative spacing to make the point:

10 riders riding at a line of 10 infantry with rifles. The 10 infantry are standing in a straight line in the open 10 yards apart from each other.

Now the riders could ride 10 yards apart and have one rider hit one infantry man in a line of contact along the whole 90 yard frontage, in a series of 1 on 1 fights. Where each individual rifle man is firing at their individual oncoming horseman, but each horseman slams into their respective infantry man if they reach them.

Or the horseman could bunch up more say one every 3 yards and have 10 of them hit 3 or 4 infantryman. Now that's great concentration of force at the point of impact, and well those 3 or 4 infantry are pretty much done if the cavalry make it to them. But of course since modern rifles have an effective range way over 90 yards those cavalry will still be facing incoming fire from the entire infantry force as they ride in to do this (some of whom will be firing without having a horseman bearing down on them). I.e the infantry line is still able to apply all it's force even though the cavalry have concentrated there's, because they can project their force with enough range to do.

So in that scenario the cavalry (minus those who got stopped by 10 rifles worth of fire on the way there) punch through the line. Now as I said earlier what do they do then? They are not in contact with any infantry, so they are out of range* so they have to reform, reposition and charge again (best course of action try and work their way up the line). But all the time they do this those infantry are still projecting force on them.


Now that's with equal forces of 10 each, only of course cavalry tend not to enjoy equal numbers when facing infantry so in reality that more likely to be 10 infantry and 5 cavalry.


*if they have pistols than they have a bit more range than if they only have melee weapons, but just adjust the distancing, either way rifles out range pistols, and your still basically talking about a fire fight between rifles and pistols likely with the rifles having superior numbers. (and you and your horse are a bigger target)

A couple of other slight issues with those horsemen bunching up. Riding in close formation and having a horse/rider go down form enemy fore can take another with them. Similarly a shot against a densely packed group that misses its first target is more likely to hit another than in a more dispersed group)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
A semi-auto or even to some extent a revolver is enormously superior to earlier pistols, and can largely replace a melee weapon in the way earlier pistols really could not.
Yep they certainly were but my point of comparison was to the rifles/muskets they were facing. So yes C20th pistol are way better than Napoleonic pistols. But C20th rifles are way better than Napoleonic muskets as well (hence my point about it being either not very significant or a wash in these terms)..


And of course there's the point that you have to get pretty close to use them (especially if you are on the back of a galloping or cantering horse).

Thing is given that pistols and cavalry already had a long history together before the C20th, and there were efforts to keep cavalry as an attacking force in the C20th, and some C20th cavalry certainly had pistols, and still there's no history of C20th cavalry regularly charging infantry and winning by dint of using pistols over sabre or otherwise.

I'm pretty comfortable in suggesting C20th pistols were not a significant factor that either we or the militarises of the first half of the C20th overlooked,

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-09-2018 at 03:14 PM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:30 PM   #137
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yep but in order to hit the same number of them you also have to spread out your charging frontage and thus reduce strength per frontage and your concentration of force.
Stop right there - why do you want to hit the same number of them? The point of concentration of force is to overwhelm a comparatively small number of enemies to create a local break that you can exploit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
But concentration of force isn't a problem for the infantry who are projecting their force via rifles and can all shoot you even in their dispersed formation (well so long as they LOS).
How small-sided a battle are you proposing? Everyone on the field being able to shoot everywhere on the field is unlikely to hold beyond very small unit situations (or the 'field' being a prepared kill zone.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yep they certainly were but my point of comparison was to the rifles/muskets they were facing. So yes C20th pistol are way better than Napoleonic pistols. But C20th rifles are way better than Napoleonic muskets as well (hence my point about it being either not very significant or a wash in these terms)..
That point of comparison wasn't to be found in the paragraph...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:56 PM   #138
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 Ulzgoroth View Post
Stop right there - why do you want to hit the same number of them? The point of concentration of force is to overwhelm a comparatively small number of enemies to create a local break that you can exploit.
Charging into a loosely dispersed force might be a breakthrough, but it also might be an ambush. Being in the middle of the enemy's line is also the same as being surrounded. The difference really is can they maintain order and turn your ground into dying ground.

Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-09-2018 at 06:34 PM.
sir_pudding is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:04 PM   #139
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Stop right there - why do you want to hit the same number of them? The point of concentration of force is to overwhelm a comparatively small number of enemies to create a local break that you can exploit.
Yes I know but for cavalry there are still issues (check the scenario I put in). Concentration of force is great when at the same time you deny your enemy the chance to apply their entire force on you*. But since infantry with C20th rifles are able to project their force over much greater range than cavalry in a cavalry charge, this will not be the case

Basically you are not going to see the benefit of concentrating your force on a single point of the line if the line (with it's much longer range) has already shot you to pieces or degraded your force by the time you get there.
Especially as cavalry often start off being outnumbered to begin with!


*for instance replace that scenario with 10 infantry shooting at 10 infantry all with equal range where you have 10 concentrate to shoot at 3 or 4 , and only get shot at by those 3 or 4 in response while the other 6 or 7 are out of range. The situation changes radically even though the same concentration in terms of bunching and contact is in effect. Because concentration is about effective engagement range of projecting force. And if you enemy has a much greater engagement range for projecting force on you it's really really hard to arrange a concentration of force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
How small-sided a battle are you proposing? Everyone on the field being able to shoot everywhere on the field is unlikely to hold beyond very small unit situations (or the 'field' being a prepared kill zone.)
It doesn't have to be "everyone on the field", the point is the rifle man have a far longer effective range for projecting force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
That point of comparison wasn't to be found in the paragraph...
It was the very next sentence in the post...

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-09-2018 at 03:19 PM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-09-2018, 03:20 PM   #140
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yes I know it's but for cavalry there are still issues (check the scenario I put in).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Basically you are not going to see the benefit of concentrating your force on single point on the line if the line (with it's much longer range) has already shot you to pieces or degraded your force by the time you get there.

Especially as cavalry often start off being outnumbered to begin with!
Those being situations where you really shouldn't attempt such a charge, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Concentration of force is great when at the same time you deny your enemy the chance to apply their entire force on you. But since infantry with C20th rifles are able to project their force over much greater range than cavalry in a cavalry charge, this will not be the case
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
It doesn't have to be "everyone on the field", the point is the rifle man have a far longer effective range for projecting force.
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.

You might as well point out how hard it is for a horseman at the gallop to deliver over-the-horizon fire support.

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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
It was the very next sentence in the post...
Which was going into a comparison of performance at range. 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...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth 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 01:48 AM.


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