"Shock value of RCW cavalry" Topic

Hey all,

I've recently started using Field of Battle 2nd edition to represent the larger scale battles of the RCW.

I'm wondering if someone could speak to the shock value of RCW cavalry as compared with earlier periods. In FOB2, there is a rule that if a cavalry unit inflicts X ammount of damage on an infantry unit in combat, instead of routing the infantry will be totally destroyed. This rule is more meant for earlier periods such as Napoleonics, where cavalry could run down infantry if they were unprepared. Does a rule like this make sense for the RCW?

Thanks!

J

I'm not an expert on the RCW, so I can't tell you if they should be treated this way. The rule intent was that cavalry that was shock dependent would be devastating if the conditions were right. My gut tells me that RCW cavalry probably wasn't that shock oriented, given better firearms on the other side.

That being said – someone will probably have instances where they WERE shock oriented.

Brent

Hey Brent!

First and foremost, loving the rules. I'll be in touch soon about picking up a few more PK rulesets.

As for this question I posted…I'm leaning towards keeping the rule as is (though I definitely am eagerly awaiting more opinions), with the cav destroying infantry in combat if they cause 2 UI in one combat roll.

From what I've read, there were whole formations of cavalry employed during the conflict mostly because the fronts were so very massive. Cav provided a maneuver element that could crash through holes between army groups, or even smaller formations, and in most circumstances fought from horseback with sword, lance and saber. While I think maneuver was their forte as opposed to shock, I would imagine that if a cavalry unit caught infantry, as you say, in the right conditions, they'd chop them down no different than say heavy cavalry in earlier conflicts.

That said…I'm really curious what others here think. I'm no expert either, though I have read my share of sources on the war.

J

The rule makes sense, in that RCW cavalry did catch and destroy units in the open.

However the relative rate of that depended quite a lot on what cavalry we are talking about.

White and Polish cavalry based around a core of experienced troopers and with good officers was shock cavalry. It could charge infantry units frontally and run them down, provided the infantry wasn't backed with MGs or artillery, but it was always a risky strategy if the infantry held their nerve. If that cavalry got into a flank or rear the enemy was in big trouble.

Cossack cavalry, which was the bulk of the Whites in the South and East, tended to use the "lava" to isolate enemy units without a direct charge. That requires space and appropriate terrain. They struggled to beat tight formations of infantry.

Red cavalry in general was poor quality, and were not charging cavalry at all. That's all your divisional cavalry for example, and most isolated brigades.

The better Reds would wear away the enemy by manoeuvre and firepower first, before a charge. The Konarmiya was quite prepared to attack on foot. The very best could take a White or Polish cavalry charge though, and mix it in melee.

Most infantry was such poor quality that they would fold instantly upon being caught be cavalry.

So the rule should be that cavalry break most infantry on contact, but only the very best cavalry should be able to ride frontally into a line of steady infantry.

(It is important if you want cavalry to play a part in RCW games that the appropriate space is given for them to operate. If the table is full, and especially if armoured cars and artillery are dominant, then they cannot be used in their historical role. The rules shouldn't make them shock cavalry to try and make up for unrealistic troop densities.)

Different game, but some of the guys on the RCW yahoolist use Command Decision and apply a pretty heavy morale penalty to any troops with nearby enemy cavalry, especially on the flanks.

A lot would seem to come down to "does the infantry stand firm or run away".

Hey guys,

Thanks you both for your replies. Mark, as usual, your thoughts are particularly helpful given your extensive knowledge of the period.

So, I'm thinking White Officer/White Regular Cavalry will get the normal 2UI in combat destroyed infantry rule.

Everyone else will not, given their lack of shock.

If the conditions are right, meaning flank or rear charges, I'm thinking of giving all cavalry the 2UI destroy infantry rule.

As for the tendency of cav to frontally charge infantry, I think the rules are written well enough that its suicide anyway if the defender has MG, Art, or Inf properly placed.

J

I think I would definitely includes Poles with the White regulars. They were pretty keen.

Some people will want a bonus to the best Reds and Cossacks as well. The core "Konnarmiya" divisions by 1920 were pretty handy, but I tend to think most Cossacks not fighting for Denikin or Wrangel are over-rated.

How are you dealing with tachankas? I don't like them being able to move and fire (what could you hit riding a buggy at speed across a field?). But they were very much a key component to the success of cavalry in the RCW.

And horse artillery too. Many rules forget them.

Hey Mark,

Oh yeah, definitely agree about the Poles. I currently don't have any, but when I do I'll treat them similarly to the better White cav units.

As for the tachankas, they are going to move like cavalry and fire like a MG. Like horse artillery they are going to get a free wheel or maneuver at the beginning of their move (as long as they are "limbered") and will need to pay a move cost per the rules to deploy. I think I'm going to give the Tachankas the ability to move and fire but at a SEVERE penalty of at least down 2. Maybe down 3.

Horse artillery will be treated similarly. The rules written already are pretty good with what they've got.

J

I don't think the tachankas ever UNlimbered…

Interesting tidbit re: Russian cavalry. Despite all the Russian infantry having bayonets for their rifles, not a single Cavalry rifle had fittings for a bayonet. Russian cavalry had a very good saber, the shashka, and saw no need for a bayonet!

Hey there,

No I know, I just use the term unlimber as per the game rules. Since Tachankas count as horse artillery, you'd still have to spend an action to maneuver them into firing position, much like horse artillery would have to spend an action to unlimber.

J

Sounds good with the tachankas J.

I have seen it argued that tachanka MGs did get off their carriages, at least sometimes.

It would make sense, as otherwise they presented a very large and obvious target and couldn't take any advantage of ground or cover.

Obviously you wouldn't do it in the open in the presence of enemy cavalry etc, but there's no reason to think they had to stay on the carriage. The MGs supporting cavalry in WWI dismounted to fire.

I don't think it needs to be modelled though -- troops would do what most suits -- except that they could be allowed to claim cover like walls.

@J: fair enough!