"Could Ludendorff have done with some cavalry in 1918?" Topic

So, there is Ludendorff bashing away at the British front in Spring of 1918; Gough's 5th Army is on the verge of falling apart and a breakthrough looks possible.

Meanwhile in Russia the bulk of Germany's cavalry is playing policeman in their newly conquered territories, leaving hardly any for the Western Front.

Could a significant cavalry force have made a difference and achieved the much desired breakthrough for Ludendorff that his Stormtroopers simply did not have the speed to manage?

Looking at the maps of northern France the British lines were alarmingly close to the coast, with the north-south line of the front roughly paralel to the north-south stretch of coast from Calais/Boulogne to Dieppe.

The French were initially sluggish in shifting their reserves to support the British; Petain was more concerned about Paris, Foch was somewhat more accomodating once he took the reigns.

The war would certainly have been a different kettle of fish is the Germans had reached the coast and been able to hold their salient. Any thoughts?

By that time, everyone had pretty much given up on the idea of "unleashing the cavalry once we acheive a breakthrough". Were there even any decent mounts left? I know what you are saying about the Eastern Front, but how good were THEIR horses? They were probably riding broken down nags in Russia, hardly the stock needed to pursue a breakthrough.
I really think that all the good cavalry mounts were gone by 1918.

The German offensive ran out of momentum so perhaps if there had been cavalry these would have been kept in reserve and Ludendorff would have had additional troops to give fresh impetus to the attack. So, perhaps just having the cavalry present and available as more troops to use rather than necessarily as mounted.

Just a thought.

Cavalry wouldn't have been near as helpful as an overall plan with operational objectives. If there had been cavalry available, he would have just thrown them in to the holes like he did with the infantry until they were all used up.

Kevin

Agreed, the emphasis on tactics rather than strategy was nonsensical (and certainly flies in the face of the "Uber-Germans" argument), however whilst the infantry did not have the speed to truly make the breakthrough and exploit tactical successes, I do wonder if cavalry could have made a better first of it.

Certainly the British used cavalry with some significant success in the Hundred Days later that year, however I suspect that British cavalry were rather more adept at the role of mounted rifleman after their experiences in South Africa than the Germans who, certainly in 1914, seem to have been refighting 1870.

Allenby certainly seemed to possess some cavalry worth having in 1918, John (though granted everything was on a much smaller scale out there).

I'll bet Ludendorff wouldn't have minded having something like the Desert Mounted Corps available for his "Kaiser's Battle."

>By that time, everyone had pretty much given up on the idea of "unleashing the cavalry once we acheive a breakthrough".

Gotta agree with the previous posters, John, this just ain't so on the British side anyway.

Me, I'm assembling cavalry models to do a 28mm "Moreuil Wood" game later this year.

w.

Sure he could have dismounted them and used them to hold quite sectors of the front.

The Brits initially combined armored cars and Whippet tanks with cavalry. They found that even a single MG could effectively stop a cavalry regiment while the light tanks and armored cars rolled on.

mjc

I would have thought investing in a decent number of armoured cars might have been more useful. Or how about rounding up a load of trucks/cars to mount up some infantry for mobility.

Look at the terrain that those offensives were launched over and you'll see that much of them was older battlefields with the shell holes, trenches, wire, and such still there. Not cavalry friendly areas at all, and I'd think that AC would have had issues.

Keep in mind that the Germans did not have the industrial might and the resources to build even a small force of tanks, let alone armored cars. France, with a much smaller population out produced Germany in nearly every industrial area during the war.

Dan

Keep in mind that the Germans did not have the industrial might and the resources to build even a small force of tanks, let alone armored cars. France, with a much smaller population out produced Germany in nearly every industrial area during the war.

Surely that has more to do with the direction the two sides took to break the trench deadlock the British and French saw the tank as the main weapon and built a lot for that reason. The Germans felt that highly trainned assualt infantry were the way to go. I mean Germany had the industry to build a large modern navy and plenty of modern artilley I'm sure if they had wanted they could have built a hundred or so armoured cars.
I take your point about the terrain. I'm sure that had the idea of launching a large mobile reserve through any gap created by the attacking infantry been part of the German plan. The Germans would have devised a way to get them through the difficult terrain and into the open ground beyond.

I agree with Dan; the ground regained by the Allies over the previous three years meant that the German advances from Michel was back across terrain which had been churned up since 1915, as opposed to the Allied breakthrough in to 'virgin' territory in the Hundred Days. Tjh elogistic effort with maintaining and then replenishing a significant mounted force on the Western Front would have been quite daunting, as the Allied air interdiction effort was in full swing by 1918 (although this didn't stop the German buildup for Kaisersclacht, feeding chaff-burners would have added to the overall effort required.) The manufacture and availability (or lack thereof of armoured cars) is a telling commentary on German capability at this stage of the war.

Inverugie

The Germans would have just the same problems getting armoured cars across the Somme crater fields as the Allies did.

A strong cavalry force would have given the Germans something which was able to exploit their tactical successes faster than the marching (and very rapidly exhausted and expended) infantry.

"They found that even a single MG could effectively stop a cavalry regiment while the light tanks and armored cars rolled on. "

It was wire covered by machineguns which were the problem for cavalry, plus the different mobility characteristsics of horses and Whippets. Absent a formed or even semi-formed front and cavalry had much more chance.

I believe the Germans, British and French all believed the key to victory on the Western Front was artillery. The Germans used this in conjunction with infantry assault tactics – a casualty intensive method. The Allies used this in conjunction with combined assault tactics using infantry assault with armor and air support – also a casualty intensive method. The difficulty was in providing continuing support after the assault had moved beyond the range of the artillery used in the initial assault.

I believe the Germans, British and French all believed the key to victory on the Western Front was artillery

In 1915-16 yes I think your right by 1917-18 I think both sides figured artillery wasn't the answer which is why you see a rise in the use of tanks and stosstruppen by the two sides. 1915-16 had shown that artillery just wasn't the answer thats not to say it wasn't important later in the war it use just changed.

Part of the problem for both sides I think is that they had spent so much time working how to break the trench lines. They really hadn't thought out how best to exploit any breakthrough when it came.

I believe that by 1918 both sides realized that a Somme type, week long barrage was not the answer. Artillery tactics advanced dramatically with both sides using an initial hurricane barrage followed by a very carefully choreographed creeping barrage. Both sides were able to gain initial objectives using these techniques. Again the problem was how to have support keep up with the advance after the initial assault had out run the artillery

Years ago my historian's charger/appaloosa went trough a spell where he was foreve getting entangled in barbed wire. I'm assuming here that despiote all the artillery and time, the battlefields over which the Germans were trying to break through would've been lousy with the stuff.

Getting a horse out f the stuff was a mess even without somebody shoting at you, I can testify.

Later on a friend of mine was doing research for a thesis about Australia vs Turkey in WWI to the point he even did a foot reconn of the battlefield of Beersheba. Max said a lot of what happened during these battles only became clear when he found out the Turkish supply system wasn't able to supply barbed wire for Turkish defenses. That made it real clear why the Australian Light Horse and Yeomanry were willing to directly charge turkish defenses straight on.

By the spring of 1918 the Germans were really hurting in terms of raw materials and industrial output. You have to remember they constructed those battleships and a lot of war materials before the war started.

I don't have particulars about areas outside of aircraft production but I do know quite a bit about the aircraft end of things.

Raw material prices had skyrocketed, able bodied craftsmen were in the trenches, the transportation system was deteriorating and industry was hoarding key materials -- which created artificial shortages.

If the Germans couldn't make a few hundred extra aircraft engines I doubt they would be making any substantial inroads on tanks or armored cars.

mjc

It was wire covered by machineguns which were the problem for cavalry, plus the different mobility characteristsics of horses and Whippets.

Requoted for truth. The Russian Civil War showed that MGs don't stop cavalry by themselves. But barbed wire with defenders does every time.

The Germans could not have fed cavalry in 1918, even if they had wanted them. Horses need to be kept in decent accomodation and fed enormous amounts of food or they become useless as mounts. The Germans were starving, so large amounts of cavalry eating their food was out of the question.

(1917-1918 Russia is no comparison. The war there was over. The Germans could just graze the horses, needing only a small amount of extra local forage to keep them in good condition.)

I didn't say MG's stopped cavalry.

I said a single MG stopped a regiment of British Cavalry.

Please don't misquote me.

mjc

I said a single MG stopped a regiment of British Cavalry.

No you didn't. You said.

They found that even a single MG could effectively stop a cavalry regiment

You may have meant this as a specific instance, but it reads as a general statement of fact. Namely that MGs were effective in stopping cavalry.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intention, but if you write ambiguously then things like this will happen.

In the context of the thread -- why cavalry were not kept -- I think it reasonable to assume that any statement about what happened was relevant to the general discussion. If it was an unusual incident, why mention it at all?

Actually the issue of fodder is very relevant. The British returns for supply deliveries for the front show that animal fodder was second on the list after shells in terms of volume, and a very close second at that.

Kevin Smoot makes a good point. Given Lundendorf's attitude towards the 1918 campaign of "First well make a hole in their lines and then we'll see what happens" (direct quote), it is less an issue of what you have then how you use it. He never did match up his means, ways and ends.

Continually hitting the British in a series of coordinated attacks would likely have done more than a handful of cav divisions whose main experience was as security troops.

P.S. Keep up all the good work Lardies!