Just about right Cav divisions.

[Peltonx]

When are you guys going to fix this exploit?

Right now Cav divisions are better then Russian tanks divisions. Read a little history P. It is not historical at all for a cav corps to be as good as a German or for that matter a Russian Tank Division.

SHC players thk tank divions are junk and build cav corps which are almost as good a an SS Panzer division. Russian Cav division had very very little in the way of hvy equipment.

If you argue they did or can then they should not be able to exploit as good as a russian tank division.

So you need to nerf the CV factor about 100%. A cav division should not even have close to the fighting power of even a russian inf div.

Where do all these horses go once the first fight starts? Horses are a logistics nightmare.

The Russian can simply load up on Infantry/Guns/Cav and turn the ToW on tanks to 0%. Why build tanks when you can have horses that are better then tanks.

Is this 1914 or 1941?

Pelton

[Lieste]

Ah you forget..

"The Machine Gun has no stopping power against the modern cavalry horse".

[Helpless]

There is no known exploit.

[Q-Ball]

Soviet Cavalry doesn't defend worth a darn; they are very useful and nicely mobile, but not tons of Combat power. I don't see how a Cav Corps can be anything near an SS Division, even with attachments up the wazoo.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

It is not historical at all for a cav corps to be as good as a German or for that matter a Russian Tank Division.

Is this 1914 or 1941?

Pelton

By April 1943 each Cavalry Division had a medium tank regiment. So a Cavalry Corps would have three tank regiments. Plus a Cavalry Corps would have an SU Regiment. Now you have four tank regiments per corps. The Cavalry Corps would also have an anti tank regiment, a light AA regiment, a Guards Mortar Battalion, a separate anti tank battalion (85mm guns) and a Recon Battalion. That's 21000 men, 123 tanks and 21 self propelled guns. That's a fairly potent formation on paper. Certainly almost equal in tanks to a 1943 panzer division, right?

[Flaviusx]

Well...they are better than Soviet tank divisions, which are near worthless in my estimation. Those suckers are basically glorified speed bumps.

Rifle divisions are better than Soviet tank divisions, too. As are tank brigades. I'm hard pressed to think of a unit I'd rather have less than a 1941 Soviet tank division, in fact. Happily, they do eventually disband.

[Ketza]

Anytime I see a Soviet tank division defending an important hex on a river or in a city I count that as an easy win.

I havent had to deal with Soviet tank corps much as of yet however. I have found Soviet cav corps hard to deal with at times but certainly not the monsters our friend Pelton describes them as.

[Mynok]

Tank corps really aren't a threat to do anything except move deep into your rear through a hole in your line. I find them easy to knock back with a panzer corps. Mech corps are a different animal altogether.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If you argue they did or can then they should not be able to exploit as good as a russian tank division.

So you need to nerf the CV factor about 100%.

So you're saying all cav CVs should be zero?
Hyperbolic maths FTW!

[Farfarer61]

Do Tank Divs set to static defend better and will they dissappear unexpectedly to convert to brigades?

[Klydon]

No they don't defend better.

They become brigades in static mode that unfortunately cost more than a brigade to activate (not sure if this is WAD), but I have seen a tank brigade cost like 14-17 to reactivate.

[ComradeP]

Klydon: that might be because it takes them a while to shake off their excess equipment, and as their TOE calls for less support squads than they need, more support squads (from when it was a Tank division) might tend to stay in the unit than with a regular Tank brigade. I noticed that when I hit "end turn" until winter to check how many Tank/motorized divisions would be left. The Tank divisions that converted had a lot more support squads than they would normally have. Pavel did tweak a thing or two since then, though, I believe.

As to the discussion: let's not confuse two things, namely the theoretical value of the unit in terms of CV and the actual value of the unit in terms of how it performs in combat. Tank and motorized divisions are (a lot) better in terms of CV than a Rifle division or cavalry corps, but in combat that value quickly plummets.

So Pelton, I know you like to exaggerate things for the sake of an argument, but cavalry corps are not better than a Tank division, as a cavalry corps has a CV of around 7 at 60 morale/experience and 100% TOE. A full strength Tank division at 50 morale/experience (so ten points less) can already get to ~12.

Cavalry corps are also not as good as a SS Panzer division, if only because they'll never get to the experience/morale level of such a SS Panzer division even if their TOE's don't differ much (in your opinion).

I'd also disagree that, when you're fighting on vast grasslands/steppes, horses are necessarily a huge logistics problem. They don't require spare parts of fuel, and everything that's needed to sustain them is generally available on the land. Horses are also far more plentiful than tanks, so they are easier to replace.

[Lieste]

Horses do cause problems for strength - of the 30 officers and men in a Soviet platoon, 11 were in charge of the mounts, and only 19 fought in the front line when dismounted... That is pretty weak.

[ComradeP]

Soviet ground elements already have a low chance to actually fire due to their low to mediocre experience.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I'd also disagree that, when you're fighting on vast grasslands/steppes, horses are necessarily a huge logistics problem. They don't require spare parts of fuel, and everything that's needed to sustain them is generally available on the land. Horses are also far more plentiful than tanks, so they are easier to replace.

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945
Walter S. Dunn, Jr.

Although theoretically horses could feed off the country during many months of the year, a
grazing horse was not working. To obtain enough food for a day, a horse would have to graze
about eight hours per day, leaving little time for work. Troops foraging for fodder on nearby
farms reduced the number available for combat. The most efficient way to feed horses was with
fodder brought up from the rear.19 A military unit on the move had no time to graze horses or to
send troops out to forage, so all of the fodder was provided, including oats, hay, corn, and
straw.20 Fodder made up a major portion of the supplies required by a division.

The Red Army used more trucks and fewer horses than the German Army because trucks and
fuel were available and fewer horses were available in the Soviet Union. A horse did not mature
until tt was three or four years old, so the number of horses could not be increased quickly.
Usually training would begin when the horse was three years old. About 25% of the horses were
lost annually through normal attrition, old age, sickness, or accidents

[Q-Ball]

Why did the Wehrmacht disband/convert the 1st Cav division? Wasn't it because of the high logistical requirements of that unit, relative to it's combat ability?

Even with fewer horses, I can see though how the Reds would have more available for Cav, since the Wehrmacht used alot more horses for transport than the Russians did.

[ComradeP]

The Red Army used more trucks and fewer horses than the German Army because trucks and
fuel were available and fewer horses were available in the Soviet Union.

Fewer horses were available due to the German offensive, which also substantially reduced the Soviet motor pool initially.

Of course, offensive units need fodder, but for a good deal of the war, the Soviets will be defending and on top of their supply lines. The logistics footprint in terms of length of road required for moving a motorized formation is also substantially larger than for moving a cavalry or infantry formation.

[Panama]

When Stalin ordered farms to be made collectives he ordered half of all livestock killed. Including horses. This put a huge obstacle in the logistics of the Soviet army when they most needed horses. But he killed off the majority of seasoned officers too so doing smart things was not exactly his strong suit.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why did the Wehrmacht disband/convert the 1st Cav division? Wasn't it because of the high logistical requirements of that unit, relative to it's combat ability?

Even with fewer horses, I can see though how the Reds would have more available for Cav, since the Wehrmacht used alot more horses for transport than the Russians did.

It is almost a logistical axiom that horses use much supply capability for fodder. In WW1 it was a big problem.

I am not sure the Soviet army used less horses for transport than the Germans in the beginning of the war. It certainly became so with time, but that was due to the availability of lend lease trucks.

The German army lost roughly as many horses during the war as it lost men.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Of course, offensive units need fodder, but for a good deal of the war, the Soviets will be defending and on top of their supply lines. The logistics footprint in terms of length of road required for moving a motorized formation is also substantially larger than for moving a cavalry or infantry formation.

True. The Germans offensives in 41 and 42 precluded much in the way of Soviet offensives. Until the Lend Lease trucks had arrived in large numbers the Soviet offensives were relatively shallow affairs. But by the summer of 1943 all that had changed and it was off to the races.

By October 43 tons of supply per day were about: Rifle Division 118, Tank Brigade 43, Cavalry Division 48, Guard Cavalry Division 61.

For the Cavalry division about 8 tons were fodder. For the Tank Brigade about 16 tons was fuel.

BTW, the daily supply in tonnage for a U.S. Infantry Division was about 541 tons. This includes all the support and service tail. The same thing for the Soviets was about 1/3 as much. [:D]