Cavalry points cost and stats

[JeffNNN]

Finally getting round to working out how to stage the 1940 Defence of the Loire by the French Cavalry cadets and other assorted units against a German Cavalry Division. A project that's been on the list for about 25 years. Going to do in 6mm.

However when I look at the stats for cavalry in BKC 4 they seem odd. A firing factor of 2/10  seems very poor though it does explain the very low points cost. As far as I can see, though neither the net or my own books are helpful, the cavalry seemed to use the same carbine as the infantry, who get 3/30. I can understand the 2, to allow for reduced numbers (because of horse holders) but not the pathetic range. It's a complete contrast to BKC 2 where they are treated as infantry, with horses bought as transport.
Can anyone explain or justify the difference?

[sultanbev]

I came across this when writing the unit specific BKCIV lists for the Russian front.
I've assumed that is a firing from horseback range as there's no other logic to it.

It isn't really about carbines being slightly worse than or the same as rifles, the determining factor is whether they had LMGs or not - pretty much all WW2 cavalry did.
So I got round it by treating cavalry as infantry that are transported on horses.

Thus I have a 1941 German Cavalry recce company as 3 infantry platoons@ 60pts, move = 10, A/P = 3/30, CA4 Hits 3 with their horses as a separate transport item:
Horses  10pts? WAGON for type, move = 25, hits = 3, 1 per infantry stand. It might not be what they intended but it makes more sense to me, as usually cavalry fought dismounted anyway. You could perhaps up the CA to 6 or 8 or something if they are actually charging infantry and contacting them with swords.

When I get round to doing the 1940 lists that is how the cavalry will be presented.

Mark

[Big Insect]

I think this has all been covered - in some depth - on an earlier Errata thread and some amendments were made.

However -
a) 'true' cavalry are rare at this period - Cossacks might be a good enough example and there are a few early War references - such as the Poles etc. But as Sultanbey states most 'cavalry' in this era are really mounted infantry and the best thing to do is to buy the appropriate infantry unit and the mounts from the Transport section and treat them accordingly. But generally the difference between mtd Infantry and true cavalry is that the mtd infantry will not generally fire mounted when cavalry can.

b) the short range for fire is primarily for LMG armed 'Cavalry' units - Soviet armies in particular seem to have gone along this lines (for some units at specific times). Carbines do generally have shorter ranges (although I expect a flurry of discussions to contradict me!). There is also a matter of scale - if you are playing your cavalry units as integral units (e.g. the mounts and riders do not separate on the table) then the shorter range will apply when they are mounted or dismounted - this particularly applies in smaller scales 2mm/3mm/6mm and could be applied to 10mm. We had a similar discussion about motor-cycles and bicycles if I remember correctly.

c) also cavalry units when dismounted will have a lower combat strength than an equivalent infantry unit - due to the need for horse holders and generally lower on-book strengths. So some degree of disadvantage (in their effectiveness in shooting and close assault) needs to be applied to a dismounted cavalry unit in combat.

d). adding an additional dice or 2 to the CA of a true cavalry unit when it has charged into combat with an infantry unit or a mounted mtd infantry unit sounds sensible (a +2 d:6 maybe would seem adequate). But it can also be argues that in modern warfare cavalry charging unsuppressed infantry frontally will probably be at a serious disadvantage!!! NB: factoring in lances v sabers I think may be a step too far (although you could give lancers a +1 d:6 over sabre armed cavalry in a frontal assault/impact if you wanted to differentiate).

It comes down to the problem that cavalry are - to most intents and purposes - anachronistic in this era and so some forms of compromise will need to be made to accommodate them.
It's a bit like trying to accommodate camels or elephants as mounts / transport / tows - each has its own specific characteristics but at the level we are playing the game at these are slightly irrelevant or can be factored in by individual players for specific games as they see appropriate.

Hope that helps?
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark in the 70's in the British army standard rifles (then SLR) were not intended to be used at over 300m, so range difference between a full powered rifle and carbine is accademic in BKC, both would generate thec same firepower.

[JeffNNN]

Thanks for the comments, I'll look at the errata too. Thought I had followed them fairly closely but obviously missed this bit. Serves me right forcwantingbto simulate such an obscure action. Had a couple of holidays on the Loire and a visit to the Saumur museums some 25 years ago.

I think as far as the Western Front is concerned the true cavalry/mounted infantry debate was pretty much done by 1914/15 so that is how I'll treat them, following Mark's line. In terms of hits I wonder If, once a base has taken 3 It should be forced to permanently dismount, rather than being destroyed. (I have done both mounted and dismounted bases). I'll look forward to seeing the specific 1940 lists too.

[Big Insect]

I like the idea of the forced dismount but would add an option that the unit can retire (away from the enemy) a full move instead and then dismount as well.

On the issues of doctrine and practice - I had suspected Ian would contribute  but this can apply to a lot of weapons Ian. Often, in a stressed combat situation, units just fired at an enemy they would see (effective range was not necessarily their top priority) - that fire could often be effective at suppression - but I accept your point.

The rules and list definitions are (as is often the case) designed to try to stop anachronistic weapons/units becoming super troops by some quirk in the rules. As long as players accept that principle you can make them work effectively. I once played a Flames of War Cossack force (admittedly fielded by a far more FoW experienced player than I) and my Eastern Front Germans - with a fair amount of armour and support weapons got thoroughly mauled. The table-top Cossack cavalry army was (IMHO) a far too powerful force in comparison to its actual historical counterpart 

[Big Insect]

Mark in the 70's in the British army standard rifles (then SLR) were not intended to be used at over 300m, so range difference between a full powered rifle and carbine is accademic in BKC, both would generate thec same firepower.

But the cavalry unit carries less ammo and depletes its firing effect Ian by having less trooper actually able to fire (see my other comments on intended ranges and actual ranges) and of course there were no SLRs in a BKC British force 

[sultanbev]

Is that true? That cavalry carry less ammo? Afterall you do have a horse to stick extra magazines and loose rounds on. (Comparing to foot infantry of course, not motorised). It's not something I've thought about but I've not seen any actual data.

[Orcs]

Mark in the 70's in the British army standard rifles (then SLR) were not intended to be used at over 300m, so range difference between a full powered rifle and carbine is accademic in BKC, both would generate thec same firepower.

I believe that is why we moved to 5.56 caliber. The potential range of the 7.62mm and .303 round was  at least a mile, so the extr propellant was a waste of cost and weight.  the 5.56 also had a tendency to tumble when it hit its target giving it the same stopping power as 7.62 that goes straight through and spnds most of its kenetic energt beyond the target.
Its often the kenetic energy that kills not the penetration.

However there have been complaints about the lack of stopping power on the smaller caliber weapons.

[fsn]

Didn't they reintroduce the GPMG in Afghanistan because they found they needed something with a bit more range?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Didn't they reintroduce the GPMG in Afghanistan because they found they needed something with a bit more range?

That was one reason. Mark the SMLE and No4 Enfields do have a somewhat higher rate of fire compared to Mauser system bolts, but am aware there were no SLR's in 1940. In our case it was an L4, but the Bren is almost identical, and qualification on the LMG was out to 600 m. Much beyond that there would be  little to see, therefore no targets. The main difference between a full sized rifle and a carbine version is much higher recoil in the carbine version, aka no4 and No5,

[sean66]

I believe that is why we moved to 5.56 caliber. The potential range of the 7.62mm and .303 round was  at least a mile, so the extr propellant was a waste of cost and weight.  the 5.56 also had a tendency to tumble when it hit its target giving it the same stopping power as 7.62 that goes straight through and spnds most of its kenetic energt beyond the target.
Its often the kenetic energy that kills not the penetration.

However there have been complaints about the lack of stopping power on the smaller caliber weapons.

not to derail the thread too much but the reason we went to 5.56 was because of a standardization of NATO Ammunition. America already used the 5.56 M16 Rifles.
the SLR 7.62 round was found to have too much punch to it. (Instances in NI where rounds had gone through double skin brick walls.
the 5.56 was also supposed to take more people out of the fight (not many people move dead soldiers during a firefight) it was surmised that if you wounded one soldier another one or two would move him back to the First Aid station. therefore depleting the enemy forces even more.
another factor is it was cheaper to make and buy the ammunition.
Regards
Sean