Armour has to be ballanced, the old triangle is taught where you have to ballance "protection against mobility and offensive power". You could try to build a massive tank like the Germans did during WWII like the Mause tank, massive firepower and all but invulnerable, but it couldn't use bridges and a lot of roads making it slow and almost undeployable. Cavalry are pretty similar, need that ballance. Heck they even tried to turn camels into mobile machine gun posts by mounting vickers machine guns to them to give offensive firepower and mobility, but it they lacked protection. Hence why cavalry now are tanks and armoured vehicles where you have the three sides of the triangle balanced if your carefull. But they need to be backed up by infantry or they're next to useless.
Dark Age to Medieval
- Thread starter boatman
- Start date
Probably true. But my comment was't meant for an example of police "charging" a crowd. TBH they'd be sued for that over here for excessive force (seems ironic when you consider that tasers, stun guns, rubber bullets, etc. are perfectly acceptable but I suppose it's because a mounted charge would be considerred deadly force here whereas the others aren't) Rather I was talking about single mounted cops manuevering through a crowd to get to the scene of a disturbance such as is common at Mardis Gras in the French Quarter.
Last edited:
Actually "cavalry" now refers to helicoper assaults. But we're drifting the thread. And you're quite right about the need to balance mobility with armor's protection. There's no perfect answer.
Last edited:
I certainly don't think cavalry was "done" or even compromised so early as the Norman invasion - its was rather that tactics evolved. An understanding of the principal tactics of, for example, the Napoleonic campaign, show that an effective battle strategy required cavalry, infantry, cannon and terrain advantage.
Infantry against cavalry? Infantry form square and fend off cavalry.....but are vulnerable to cannon and can only bring 1/4 of their muskets to bear
Infantry against infantry? Form line....but line is very vulnerable to cavalry attack from the flanks - albeit less vulnerable to cannon
There are many other "set pieces" that show this type of position and response - the column advance etc. But cavalry - light and heavy - certainly still had an active and necessary part to play in the early 1800s
Infantry against cavalry? Infantry form square and fend off cavalry.....but are vulnerable to cannon and can only bring 1/4 of their muskets to bear
Infantry against infantry? Form line....but line is very vulnerable to cavalry attack from the flanks - albeit less vulnerable to cannon
There are many other "set pieces" that show this type of position and response - the column advance etc. But cavalry - light and heavy - certainly still had an active and necessary part to play in the early 1800s
Haven't denied the utility of cavalry but apart from horse against horse fights can anyone name a battle won by it without missile support or a solid infantry block to retreat to? Belisarius certainly used cavalry effectively in Italy but although the PBI were despised by writers, on his campaigns it does seem as though he relied on his foot.
Keegan makes the point that a cavalry charge against cavalry is nothing like a head-on clash but the two units would ride through each others group. In effect whatever the size of the two groups it was always like a skirmish. Lancers might have behaved slightly differently because their weapon required a point of aim on an opponent but even so it was never a solid front that struck their opponents.
Is it true that Custer's men lacked sabres and if so did they have pistols with which to skirmish? It seems to me that they tried to act like mounted infantry, dismounting and taking cover behind their horses. Had they been trained in controlled volley fire? The Indians had been called the finest light cavalry in the world but is that only in comparison to their opponents?
Keegan makes the point that a cavalry charge against cavalry is nothing like a head-on clash but the two units would ride through each others group. In effect whatever the size of the two groups it was always like a skirmish. Lancers might have behaved slightly differently because their weapon required a point of aim on an opponent but even so it was never a solid front that struck their opponents.
Is it true that Custer's men lacked sabres and if so did they have pistols with which to skirmish? It seems to me that they tried to act like mounted infantry, dismounting and taking cover behind their horses. Had they been trained in controlled volley fire? The Indians had been called the finest light cavalry in the world but is that only in comparison to their opponents?
Last edited:
There have been various armour versus longbow tests done over the years with mixed results.
Whilst certain good qiality armour could stop a couple of arrows in certain conditions there will be some that get through not to mention the poor horse taking multiple hits. Add to this the blunt trauma of a battle weight arrow and the psychological trauma of it raining arrows from thousands of archers at once. Wouldn't be much fun.
Whilst certain good qiality armour could stop a couple of arrows in certain conditions there will be some that get through not to mention the poor horse taking multiple hits. Add to this the blunt trauma of a battle weight arrow and the psychological trauma of it raining arrows from thousands of archers at once. Wouldn't be much fun.
Did you hear about the problems that European knights had against the 'Infidels' during the first crusade ?
Knights rode huge great stallions....the forerunners of the Pecherons, and such like, basically the big heavy horses.
The Arab archers rode fast, nimble mares.
The knights lost because of biology
Their horses took off an chased the mares.
I have seen a modern day reenactor who is equiped as a Medieval Persian archer, on a fast, nimble mare. He had three arrows in the air and another notched .....every arrow hit it's target and he was in full control of his horse. Well trained and he used his legs and his voice to tell her what he wanted her to do.
It was a literally astonishing display of skill, and he said that it was once common.
cheers,
Toddy
Knights rode huge great stallions....the forerunners of the Pecherons, and such like, basically the big heavy horses.
The Arab archers rode fast, nimble mares.
The knights lost because of biology
Their horses took off an chased the mares.
I have seen a modern day reenactor who is equiped as a Medieval Persian archer, on a fast, nimble mare. He had three arrows in the air and another notched .....every arrow hit it's target and he was in full control of his horse. Well trained and he used his legs and his voice to tell her what he wanted her to do.
It was a literally astonishing display of skill, and he said that it was once common.
cheers,
Toddy
Cavalry was never much good against formed infanty - but boy was it effective against scattered infantry!
Light cavalry was most effective against skirmishers and routed infantry - it is easiest to stab a man in the back than face him!
Light cavalry was most effective against skirmishers and routed infantry - it is easiest to stab a man in the back than face him!
In any conflict, especially one using l'arme blanche, an army running away will suffer greater casualties in the retreat, apparently partly because it stimulates a kill instinct in the pursuers. In Italy the Austrian Army tried to have infantry with their detached cavalry scouts, skirmishers and foragers because those dreadful Italian peasants unfairly kept ambushing cavalrymen who were away from the main body.
My Grandfather could personally testify to the effectiveness of a mounted policeman. He was at the Cup Final in the 1920s where the crowd filled the football pitch and the "white horse" cleared the area. No charge involved though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923_FA_Cup_Final
My Grandfather could personally testify to the effectiveness of a mounted policeman. He was at the Cup Final in the 1920s where the crowd filled the football pitch and the "white horse" cleared the area. No charge involved though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923_FA_Cup_Final
I don't think Americans think or use horses in quite the same way. They seem to use them as calming influences, our police and armies use them as controlling ones.
Folks scatter out of the way of the mounted police when they breenge at someone or a knot of trouble.
They get used at demonstrations, picket lines and the like; Ravenscraig, etc.,
Fellow in Glasgow has just been done at the Sheriff court, and found guilty, for trying to feed a Gregg's sausage roll to two police horses. £200 fine for breach of the peace. He said the horses looked hungry
http://m.local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/...-feeding-a-greggs-ham-roll-to-a-police-horse/
cheers,
M
If it was a Greggs sausage role to the horses he could be done for insighting canabalism 
The Winged Hussars were kicking bottom right into the 17th Century.
A slightly twisted article on them, though I found it amusing. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html
It's interesting what a wide range of functions mounted soldiers had. Heavy and light cavalry, lancers, hussars, curassiers, etc., all with their separate functions. We tend to think of soldiers fighting from horseback, but in the days before air reconnaisance, scouting must have been a high priority with the ability to gather intelligence and report quickly back. Also mounted messengers to convey orders in the fluidity of the battlefield must have been indispensable before the age of telecommunications. And look what happened when the message got garbled and led to the Charge of the Light Brigade!
I came across an interesting reference to mounted infantry units active during the Boer War. The distinction between cavalry and mounted infantry was that the cavalry fought on horse back, whereas the mounted infantry used horses only as a means of transport to get to where they were needed before dismounting and fighting on foot.
Anyone who has been to Paris and enjoyed the vistas of the great, broad boulevards may be interested to know that they look the way they do because in the 1850's Haussman designed the layout to make cavalry charges against rioting Parisians easy and to minimise narrow streets down which they could escape. The long, straight boulevards made a good field of fire for volleys of grapeshot from cannons.
I came across an interesting reference to mounted infantry units active during the Boer War. The distinction between cavalry and mounted infantry was that the cavalry fought on horse back, whereas the mounted infantry used horses only as a means of transport to get to where they were needed before dismounting and fighting on foot.
Anyone who has been to Paris and enjoyed the vistas of the great, broad boulevards may be interested to know that they look the way they do because in the 1850's Haussman designed the layout to make cavalry charges against rioting Parisians easy and to minimise narrow streets down which they could escape. The long, straight boulevards made a good field of fire for volleys of grapeshot from cannons.
widu13
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Cavalry evolved continually from Heavy horse to mount a fully armoured knight, to the Napoleonic wars where Light, Medium and Heavy Cavalry were used; each with their own speciality That organisation has continued through to today although the steed is somewhat different!
As said by Red, Calvary was very effective during the Napoleonic wars and anyone who has read Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe series can't help but feel the emotions he evokes when both the views of the infantry and cavalry are described.
As said by Red, Calvary was very effective during the Napoleonic wars and anyone who has read Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe series can't help but feel the emotions he evokes when both the views of the infantry and cavalry are described.
Last edited:
Not just helicopters, certainly in Europe tanks are considered to be heavy cavalry units and things like armoured cars and helecopters are considered light cavalry. Pretty sure America had the same designations. Though with beasts like the Apache how you can consider that a light unit with it's speed, loiter time, armour and offensive capability is beyond me.
Cheers,
GB.
Good TV programme on TV about Crecy and that whole campaign recently. Also one on history and development of the bayonet. Both had comment on defence by infantry against cavalry. Seems cavalry would not attack formed ranks of infantry but loose or routed infantry... Just like others said earlier. Interesting stuff.
You're partly right. The key word regarding the American designations is "had." Shortly after WWII the tank and similar units lost their "mechanized cavalry" designations and have since been referred to as "armored" units.
Last edited: