"Cavalry Rules for WW2 games" Topic

I'm looking to introduce cavalry into the Ostfront rules eventually and I'm interested to know what systems people think handle cavalry well, and hear any thoughts on what I've come up with so far.

I've had a look at cavalry's role in WW2, and while most nations didn't really use them beyond logistics, some did make heavy use of them, particularly the Chinese Armies.
Mostly I've found they were used as mounted infantry – dismounting long before engaging in combat, and as recon when air recon wasn't possible, but I've read a few of the encounters where cavalry actually did charge on horseback. These are fairly few and far between, and obviously with the advent of the machine gun, armored car and tank in WW1, Cavalry became less effective, and their traditional recon role was taken over by aircraft.

So I want to represent cavalry as fragile, quick, with the ability to appear from unexpected areas, and dismount to fight on foot, but still give them the ability to overrun infantry and field gun positions on horseback (as happened once or twice with Polish cavalry) I realize one or two instances of actual charges aren't really indicative of how most cavalry were used, but in the end its a game and I want to give people the opportunity of doing some of the more radical maneuvers that did actually happen, provided they aren't machine-gunned or blown to shreds long before getting close to an infantry unit or gun emplacement.

I have also read about the incident with Polish cavalry ending up in the same place as German tanks – not charging them, but ending up intermingling with the tanks and causing the tank crews to become disorientated and withdraw. Would it be too much to include rules for this? or is this simply a misinterpretation of what happened? I dont want to end up with people taking cavalry to force their enemies tanks off the table, but I think it could be hilarious to at least include some kind of reflection of this incident. If anyone has a clearer depiction of what happened, or some recommended reading, I'd be grateful.

Here's the current rules I have for Cavalry, but I'm still playtesting and doing research, so more of an early draft:
pastebin.com/ehX53zVw

The cavalry fights that happened in Poland seems to have mainly been of two types that I recall reading about:

A: The cavalry, still mounted, comes upon an unprepared enemy and rather than dismount to fight on foot, they attack on horse.
In some cases, this managed to shatter German formations, at least temporarily.

B: In some cases, when caught under fire, it could be safer to attack through an enemy position than trying to cause the entire unit to regroup, change direction and move off, while in the enemy fields of fire.

Cavalry was used in some quantity on the Eastern Front by all involved, for recon and occasionally those outfits saw combat.

Speed can be a vital weapon in the right circumstances, of course.

I'm not sure about the rules for cavalry causing confusion among enemy tanks. Even if it did happen once (and I don't know the details of the incident so I can't comment) I think it would be a mistake to include it in your rules or you will end up with players trying to use cavalry as an anti-tank weapon.

In general terms I would say that increased movement makes sense and if scouting plays a part in your rules then having cavalry in your force might provide an advantage (depending on terrain). But when the shooting starts anyone still sitting on a horse should be in big trouble.

Having said that, I know precisely nothing about the Chinese theatre in the Second World War and it may be that cavalry still played a significant role?

Under the Chain of Command umbrella, there is cavalry rules for gaming the Spanish Civil War and similar rules for the Soviets in the TFL Winter Storm mini campaign booklet.

Now I have not played any cavalry rules, but as they seem pretty sensible. I am painting up some Soviet cavalry now and later some Waffen cavalry as well.

I suspect the cavalry can be used in scouting and possible ambushes…a big factor in CoC

Hope this helps.

P.

The NUTS! Clash of Titans ostfront campagn book has extensive cavalry rules and a cavalry scenario based around the Savoia Cavalry's famous charge.

The advent of the machine gun (prior to WW1), armoured car (prior to WW1), and the tank (during WW1) did not make cavalry less effective in WW1. Indeed, formations like Sordet's Cavalry Corps (French) incorporated machine guns and armoured cars into their formations in order to benefit from these new weapons systems. The same applied to the quick-firing field guns too, which were incorporated as horse artillery. Nor did aircraft replace the need for on-the-ground recon functions. As witnessed in the opening weeks of WW1, there were few days where the weather was clear enough for aircraft and airships to provide robust aerial reconnaissance information.

Cavalry were at the forefront of the British and French pursuit of the German army in November 1918, despite the severe logistics issues. In Palestine, Megiddo exemplified what a mounted force could achieve following the breakthrough opened up by naval and ground-based artillery followed by infantry attacks.

Robert

Thanks for the replies everyone, definitely agree with SJDonovan that tank confusion rules are somewhat questionable. Might leave those ones out :)

I'll look into the NUTS and Chain of Command rules. I've had a look at FoW whose cavalry rules seem sane. Fist Full of TOWs also mentions cavalry, but doesn't go into much depth, being a mostly modern system.

Considering cavalry did see quite a bit of action and usage, it will pay to get them right!

Pic: Mongolian cavalry in Nomonhan / Khalkin Gol

I have also read about the incident with Polish cavalry ending up in the same place as German tanks – not charging them, but ending up intermingling with the tanks and causing the tank crews to become disorientated and withdraw. Would it be too much to include rules for this? or is this simply a misinterpretation of what happened?

I am not sure what incident is exactly being referred to, but my understanding is that tankers are not too fond of having enemy footsloggers too close by, due to risk of close assaults, limited visibility and difficulties in engaging targets very close by. Presuming that you represent those challenges appropriately, players probably don't want to to have their tanks too close to the enemy, and voluntarily move their tanks away without any special rule forcing them to do so.

As for dismounting, keep in mind that a good number of men would be required to stay back and take care of the horses – maybe around 30 % of the total manpower or so. Not to mention that the horses themselves are still vulnerable to enemy fire, so you probably want to dismount in a place where they are not visible to enemy MG crews and such.

As for cavalry charging in with cold steel, that was certainly trained in various militaries during the interwar period, and may have helped to instill at least some level of aggressiveness. And Soviet industry was still cranking out cavalry sabres well after 1941, when they had shifted to quite dire war economy, so they must have thought those good for something – at least for morale and spirit, even if they likelihood of seeing close combat might be a bit low.

Speaking of Soviets in general, they fielded quite a lot of cavalry in the early years of the war, though those tended to diminish in numbers as the war progressed and proper motorised units could be relied on for mobility. And the Soviet cavalry units were not just reconnaissance platoons, they actually fielded division-sized units with the usual infantry support weapons (Maxims, mortars, anti-tank rifles, anti-tank guns, infantry guns, field guns).

Another issue with cavalry might be that they are affected a bit differently by terrain than wheeled/tracked vehicles, and can be less noisy.

Not sure you have thought this one through. Man dug in a trench. Horse runs up, dead easy target, vs very hard target. Stike one to man in trench.

There is a chance if you caught a colum on the march you could upset them. Most wargames do not start from that position. Men behind say 25 pounders, with canester rounds (I believe there is a canister round for the 25 pounder) it would be worse than cavalry storming the guns in Napolionic times. Engineering an enemy into a horrendious level of unpreparedness so cavalry could work seems like it would not be much of a game.

Man dug in a trench. Man comes under fire from cavalry MG teams and cavalry artillery. Man takes cover. Horse runs up, very hard target versus dead easy target. Strike two to man on horseback.

Hopefully this helps you understand how cavalry were trained to operate. In practice, they would rarely seek to engage entrenched targets as cavalry would try to seek the open flanks and out manoeuvre. During the Battle of Megiddo, however, there were Ottoman army rearguards that attempted holding actions, only to be overcome in the manner described above.

Robert

Soviet Cavalry has a little bit of everything. They are a great mobile exploitation force to hit rear areas and hold objectives against counterattacks.

Soviet Doctrine:
link

Soviet Cavalry TOE:
PDF link

Wolfhag

Griefbringer, great ideas, the horses definitely shouldn't "disappear" once the cavalry dismount. Having a horse marker that can be shot down just like regular infantry (and that can't take cover) I think will encourage people not to dismount in range of the enemy :)

Some good points UshCha and monk2002uk, the man in trench (or bunker) is always a tough target, even to regular infantry and often for tanks too, unless they're packing some nice large caliber HE rounds. Advancing into an area where infantry are dug in and waiting for you is almost always suicidal in Ostfront, and its usually best to destroy the majority of the forces, and then advance well supported if you do have to.
Obviously cavalry will have an even tougher time as they can't bring as much fire to bear as quickly as regular infantry – they can't simply get down and start firing MGs. So in this situation the Cavalry would get shredded when trying to assault heavily dug in infantry, unless they could find a way to appear unexpected from a flank, while the infantry are busy dealing with targets to their front, then get charge in (or dismount) before the infantry has a chance to inflict too many casualties.

Wolhag great links, very very helpful, thank you!

Unless a cavalry force rode into a completely hidden pre-prepared defensive position then they would not have a problem getting MGs and artillery to bear. Cavalry maintained a deep layer of reconnaissance screens, starting with officer patrols, recon troops (i.e. a troop of cavalry equivalent of an infantry section), advanced guard squadron, etc. For independent cavalry formations, these screens covered 10s of miles at least. Thus the main body would not ride into such an ambush as it would have been sprung many miles ahead. This enabled the MG teams and field artillery to be brought into position. Remember that cavalry trained hard at bringing the weapons systems into action more quickly not less quickly. German cavalry near Le Cateau, in the famous battle of that name in 1914, brought their MGs into action by firing from the MG limbers directly. This was similar to the Tchanka approach used by Russian cavalry MGs. The German cavalry MGs put an entire BEF battalion out of action for the rest of the battle.

Unless there was a very good reason, cavalry would dismount well away from the expected area of action. Definitely well off table from a skirmish level war-game perspective. You can count on loosing 1/4 of a cavalry force as horseholders in practice.

Robert

As for dismounting, keep in mind that a good number of men would be required to stay back and take care of the horses – maybe around 30 % of the total manpower or so.

Not necessarily. In US Army mounted units, at least at the beginning of the war, the number of horse-holders depended on the situation; if the unit was expected to have to remount quickly, 2-3 men (out of a squad of 8)stayed behind to hold the horses, but if the unit was going to occupy a position or advance entirely on foot, one man was designated to hold each squad's horses.

LT