Questions about Cavalry Units

[Monter_Trismegistos]

How they differ from infantry units? Are they any faster? Is there a way to make them to have cavalry symbol instead of infantry?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

How they differ from infantry units? Are they any faster? Is there a way to make them to have cavalry symbol instead of infantry?

I'm not really sure they really did. Most USA Cavalry units functioned just like regular infantry if I remember right and differed only by name. Not sure about other nationalities and their cavalry units.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Well I am talking about in-game Japanese cavalry divisions.

[el cid again]

It is a little known military fact (better known in the 19th century) that good infantry can out-march cavalry. Duing the Nez Pierce campaign, dismounted artillery "regiments" functioning as infantry consistently left the US Cavalry in its dust! In the 20th Century, the French Foreign Legion, as a matter of doctrine, required its men to move 50 miles a day - and THEN build a defensive position - usually of rocks! Most infantry can't do that - it is not in good enough physicial condition - but NO cavalry can rival such a feat.

Japanese cavalry - and all modern 20th century cavalry - is not cavalry, but in traditional 19th century English military terminology they are dragoons. Dragoons is a word for "mounted infantry." They ALWAYS fight dismounted as infantry - just ride horses when NOT fighting. The Japanese cavalry had a different organization than the infantry, and it had different equipment. Its rifles were cut down and we tend to call them "carbines" - because in English a carbine is a short rifle - but in IJA they were "short rifles." They also developed their own field gun - appropriately called the "cavalry gun" - sort of a light weight 75mm field gun - but not a pack gun (the IJA had two generations of pack guns too - and the later of these could be either mule packed or manpacked - but the Cavalry used a real field gun that did not break down - was heavier - and had more range than a pack gun).

Actually, there are two different kinds of IJA "cavalry." The real cavalry - in actual brigades and one de facto division called a "cavalry group" - which I was talking about - and also there were "cavalry" recon units - which were not at all the same thing. These guys really were mounted infantry, and used infantry weapons (mostly - nothing Japanese is ever simple), and were parts of infantry units (UNLESS there was a motorized recon unit, or no recon unit - both of which were options!) But in our system these guys should be organic to brigades and divisions - so I assume you speak of the actual cavalry brigades - used only in China, Mongolia and Manchukuo (and another country missing on our map - sort of NE China). These guys should be thought of as "a different sort of infantry" - a lighter OB - but not really any different for movement purposes than any other infantry formation light on artillery. Oh - and just to confuse the issue - the IJA Cavalry units have MOTORIZED recon units! [It is simply not cultural to do anything simple in Japanese]

[m10bob]

I concur with Sid....
http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/014_jap ... ation.html

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Well It can be true, because I've heard about ancient battle of Marathon and question why they sent a runner to Athens instead of mounted messenger? The answer was that runner was faster than a horseman on a longer distances.

But on the other side (Attention! only my thoughts) real thing that limit speed of foot infantry is their supply columns and artillery, horsedrawn (when not motorized). And cavalry supply columns and artillery had more horses attached to each wagon(?). So they could have better speed .

[el cid again]

But on the other side (Attention! only my thoughts) real thing that limit speed of foot infantry is their supply columns and artillery, horsedrawn (when not motorized). And cavalry supply columns and artillery had more horses attached to each wagon(?). So they could have better speed .

IJA supply organic to field formations comes in three types:

motorized
draft (horse carts)
pack (mule pack and man pack) - this being two slightly different things

IJA units are sized accordingly: a unit with motor supply is smaller than the same unit with draft supply which is smaller than the same unit with pack supply.

But oddly ALL units move the SAME speed! That is, even "motorized" supply trains have horse carts! Oddly, in smaller formations, Japanese infantry, which does not "march" in the western sense, sometimes moved surprising distances, to their advantage. But large units all pretty much move the same distance regardless. The ONLY exception is very rare mechanized units - which actually are really motorized units. These were only in Manchukuo, the Home Islands, and (one case) Luzon (Philippines).
Otherwise the only mech units were battalions called regiments (although Tsuji calls the multiple regiment force in Malaya a "brigade" I don't know what he means in OB terms). The "cavalry" brigades are mixed just like the infantry - no pack- just horse carts and trucks. Which means it moves like the regular infantry. But MANPACK units are slightly faster in some conditions - notably good trails. No cavalry advantage for movement at all.

[2ndACR]

IIRC, was not the 5th and Imperial Guard Divisions motorized? I could have sworn that both of these divisions were motorized infantry divisions.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
...all modern 20th century cavalry - is not cavalry, but in traditional 19th century English military terminology they are dragoons. Dragoons is a word for "mounted infantry." They ALWAYS fight dismounted as infantry - just ride horses when NOT fighting.

Almost always. There were exceptions, such as this...

[el cid again]

IIRC, was not the 5th and Imperial Guard Divisions motorized? I could have sworn that both of these divisions were motorized infantry divisions.

They are sometimes listed this way - and I myself list them either this way or as "bicycle infantry" in the case of the 5th. The TROOPS walk - so in the sense of "everybody rides" they are not motorized. For Malaya - where roads were paved - bikes were issued - and 5th line infantry got two weapons per man - a rifle and an LMG each - according to Tsuji (see Japan's Greatest Victory, Britain's Greatest Defeat). This was possible because the bike allowed them to carry more. But the supporting transport organization - while indeed motorized to an unusual degree for IJA - had draft regiments as well as truck regiments (2 of 6 if I remember right). It is possible these were not used in Malaya - units were typically modified for amphib ops - and Yamashita is the ONLY Japanese commander to do logistics right. He had five divisions available - but only sent three - since he could not support five in combat properly - the only such case I am aware of.

[el cid again]

Almost always. There were exceptions, such as this...

True. I should have said all serious mounted military units. There were some obscure cases. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Military History (if I remember right) says the last cavalry charge in history was in Russia, done by Italians, during World War II!

Your picture may be a famous Aussie unit in WWI in the mideast - and it was a total shock that it not only worked but involved so few casualties. It may be the last successful cavalry charge. But there may be others in India or some other British colony I don't know about.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Almost always. There were exceptions, such as this...

True. I should have said all serious mounted military units. There were some obscure cases. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Military History (if I remember right) says the last cavalry charge in history was in Russia, done by Italians, during World War II!

Your picture may be a famous Aussie unit in WWI in the mideast - and it was a total shock that it not only worked but involved so few casualties. It may be the last successful cavalry charge. But there may be others in India or some other British colony I don't know about.

I have seen claims that a charge by the 26th Cavalry (Philippine Scouts) during the withdrawal to Bataan is the last combat cavalry charge.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

There were also charges on eastern front - I know that polish cavalry (actually Polish People's Army - under Soviet command) alongside with Soviet cavalry charged on horses even in 1943!

Also there was one charge during September Campaign in 1939, but it actually was quick movement on horses through the lines of surprised Germans from one place to another place owned by Polish Army (they tried to reinforce surrounded Warsaw).

Note that Polish Cavalry regiments (in size of battalions) were divided by name to light cavalry, lancers and mounted rifles - all of these were in fact mounted rifles by doctrine of their use.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Almost always. There were exceptions, such as this...

True. I should have said all serious mounted military units.

What wasn't serious about the WW1 Australian Light Horse?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Almost always. There were exceptions, such as this...

True. I should have said all serious mounted military units.

What wasn't serious about the WW1 Australian Light Horse?

Sadly it was an ill-informed reply, the charge by 2 Rgts of Australian Light Horse at Beersheba which captured a heavily defended town was an amazing feat of arms. (Also they didnt have swords!!) (Family connection, my Mother new the Bouchiers well, he led one of the Rgts and on my Wife's side, they are related to Grant, the Brigadier)

But after this occaision there were a number of succesful charges by Australian, New Zealand, British & Indian Units in the Palestine campaign (despite some of the defenders being the well trained German Machine Gun units)

I believe the last Cavalry charge by the British Army was in Kenya during the Mau Mau campaign

[herwin]

Yes, cavalry was slower than good infantry on a day-in, day-out basis. It also ate more. Its advantage over motorised units was that it wasn't road-bound, and over infantry was its battlefield mobility or tempo it could sustain--a cavalry corps or division could change its line of advance much more easily than motorised units and could get in and out faster than infantry. The motorised units corresponding best were the recon companies and battalions seen in most armies.