"cavalry to infantry ratio" Topic

I was looking through 'Scenarios for All Ages' for a wargame scenario to play next. Most the scenarios have way more cavalry than I actually have, even if I split units in half I still don't have enough. For medieval and Napoleonic, I have about 6 units of infantry for every 1 unit of cavalry and 1 unit artillery (twice as many guns for Napoleonic).

What do people think is the right ratio for a fun game ?
Whats right for a Historically(Medieval/Napoleonic) accurate game (if that's different) ?

For a fun game I would up the ratio by a bit – one battle cavalry (cuirassier/dragoon) and one light cavalry (hussar/uhlan/chevauleger) unit per six infantry. This gives a sufficient maneuver/melee punch to mix in with the grinding, firepower-based tactics that infantry/artillery forces are prone to adopt.

Good question

For a French Division the ratio of one cavalry brigade to five or six infantry brigades with two batteries works and also is overall fairly historical

Or play Peninsular scenarios where cavalry was lighter on teh ground.

Frederick's ratio is correct – for infantry corps which made up the bulk of the Grande Armee. But don't forget that there are cavalry corps also (of 4-6 brigades), perhaps one for every 3 infantry corps. This pushes the historical proportion of cavalry to infantry somewhat higher.

As for medieval games, that's going to depend entirely upon the period and the armies. A ratio of 6:1 infantry to cavalry has too many cavalry for a 15th-century English army and too few for a 13th-century French. But I think the "fun" rule still applies – cavalry make the battle more exciting, PROVIDED you give them enough tabletop space to maneuver.

A fun historical game frequently calls for more cavalry than most historical ones, especially at the SFAA level, which is tactical. Too little cavalry, and you're likely looking at an attrition battle. I'd say Grant knew what he was doing, and I've been known to add a little cavalry to Grant scenarios for either Napoleonics or SYW.

But really, Grant expects his cavalry units to be half the manpower of his infantry ones, and hardly any of his H&M scenarios call for more than four cavalry units a side, while up to eight infantry units is normal. If you can't muster one cavalryman for four infantrymen in horse & musket periods, it's something you may want to work on.

You talk about owning 6:1, but do you actually not have two heavy and two light cavalry units per side? Or are you just saying that some of your infantry will need to sit out the game?

I'll pass on medieval. Too much variation country to country and century to century.

With medieval, things can vary a lot depending on the location and the size of the action. Small actions could be potentially quite cavalry heavy, though the ratio of infantry would increase as the size of action increases.

Similarly, in the more open areas of eastern Europe cavalry could be more dominant presence than in western Europe, though often also more lightly armed and armoured, and this was also reflected in the tactics, providing for more manoeuvre than the heavy cavalry charge of western knights. And some western European nations, such as Swiss and Flemish, could organise forces that were very infantry heavy.

Especially in the late medieval times the issue is further complicated by the common practice of dismounting part or all of the cavalry to fight on foot, depending on the circumstances. While such practice persisted well past the medieval times, my understanding is that by Napoleonic times it had become less common, and even dragoons could prefer to remain mounted through a battle.

As for what makes for a fun game, I would suggest 1-2 cavalry units for each flank, presuming that there is enough space for them to manoeuvre there. In case the terrain restricts manoeuvre on one flank, then less. Also, light cavalry, intended for supporting and harassment, can be more fun to move around than heavy cavalry that can crush enemy units on their own with a solid lance charge.

Ok thanks for the answers, think I might need to paint some more horses then. I have 12 French infantry battalions, but only 1 heavy and 1 light cavalry, and the same for the allies. For hyw/wotr just 1 heavy cavalry per side. I have been eyeing the victrix lancers though….might need a bigger table too.

This question is easier for me to grasp if you pencil in ball park unit sizes.

If your French infantry battalions were 24 figures (for argument's sake) then 12 of them give you 288 figures.

On the basis that the usual battlefield proportion of infantry / cavalry / artillery was about 80 / 15 / 5, the proportionately "correct" cavalry headcount would be 54 figures.

French cavalry regiments were supposed to be about the nominal size of an infantry battalion, but in practice were more usually about half or two-thirds of that size. So a cavalry regiment would be 12 to 16 figures. Four such units gives you about 56 figures.

I conclude that if you've only got one heavy and one light cavalry unit, you're a bit short. What about one heavy, one dragoon, one lancer, one chasseur? That's overweight on heavy versus light, but OTOH the light element wasn't necessarily on the battlefield.

Note that the above works regardless of unit size you use, it's all about the proportions.

Wow, then I'm well under for both cavalry and guns. I think I need a bigger house then as well. 😀

Guns are easy. The above ratio is headcount of artillerymen, but a simpler way of doing it is guns per thousand men. A typical guns per thousand men value is 2 to 4, 2 for the Peninsula where shortage of draft animals limited what could be towed, and 4 for more temperate climes. There are exceptions obviously but if you went for 3 or 3.5 per thousand men you're about there. At Waterloo Napoleon had about 3.4 guns per thousand men, for example.

Foot batteries were more numerous than horse, so say 3:1 foot to horse.

So, your 12 battalions are probably about 7,000 men, and your four cavalry regiments will be about 1,200 to 1,500. In total you have about 8.4 thousands there, which implies about 30 guns. This works out quite neatly at three (8-gun) foot batteries and one (6-gun) horse battery.

If your 12-battalion force depicts an actual division-size formation, then this doesn't work because no division had that many guns attached. If your force is an army then it does.

When it comes to collecting and painting figures, I guess we may easily prefer infantry over cavalry: per figure it is cheaper, faster to paint and takes less space in storage and tabletop.

Yeah I think I planned infantry, then added cavalry on. Not sure how I feel about painting cavalry, it's k for a bit. I have 6 Foot artillery guns aside, I usually use 2 guns as a battery, for each brigade so thats the 3 batteries covered. Now how accurate is that in fire power, if foot artillery can shoot 3 dice at close range, which is the same as an infantry battalion not in line, does that balance in fire power? 1 gun = 1 battalion, at say 100 yds ?

Clausewitz specifically says that a battery of six-pounders has the same firepower as a battalion (he implies in line), so you're on pretty solid ground. Perhaps a bit more if delivering canister versus charging enemy – if the gunners have determined to hold in place rather than limber and scoot!

@Eumelus
Didn't Clausewitz say the battery did two to three times the execution of a battalion?

Allan, you may be right and I have misremembered. I just went back to the section (Section V, chapter 4) I was (wrongly) recalling and he doesn't say they generate equivalent firepower – he says they COST the same to raise, equip, and maintain (as does a squadron of cavalry).

What he does say is that artillery is the most destructive of the branches, and that an army can more easily do with less (or no) cavalry than shortchange its artillery. But I STILL maintain that speaking solely for consideration of fun alone, cavalry is most likely to increase the excitement level of a scenario!

@Eumelus

Clausewitz actually says:
'Artillery fire is much more effective than that of infantry. A battery of eight six-pounders takes up less than one-third of the front taken up by an infantry battalion; it has less than one-eighth the men of a battalion, and yet its fire is two to three times as effective. On the other hand, artillery has the disadvantage of being less mobile than infantry. This is true, on the whole, even of the lightest horse-artillery, for it cannot, like infantry, be used in any kind of terrain. It is necessary, therefore, to direct the artillery from the start against the most important points, since it cannot, like infantry, concentrate against these points as the battle progresses. A large battery of 20 to 30 pieces usually decides the battle for that section where it is placed.'

I definitely agree with you on the cavalry point: absence or even lack of numbers dulls the excitement and tension.

I think with regard to the Napoleonic Wars the impression we have is colored by the British experience in Spain where conditions weren't favorable to cavalry. My army is about 4:1 infantry to cavalry and I checked the battle of Borodino once and came up with 3:1. Maybe someone can confirm that.

I'm not that up on Borodino but that sounds about right. link reckons

"The Russian had around 17,000 regular cavalry, 14,500 gunners manning just under 640 guns, 30,000 militia, 10,000 Cossacks and 83,500 infantry."

…for a total of 155,000. Of that total 17% were cavalry, 74% foot and 9% artillery.

The same source says 30,000 of 134,000 French were cavalry, which is 22%. It may be true but if so it is on the high side for most armies of the era.

At Wagram Charles had ~150,000 men of whom 10% were cavalry; Napoleon had about 180,000 of whom 27,000 were cavalry. So 10% and 15% respectively.

In 1805 overall Austrian cavalry strength was about 10 or 11% of the army. The equivalent French figure was a bit more but not that much more. 89 Line, 26 Light regiments at say 2,500 men each = 288,000; 78 cavalry regiments at say 600 men each = 45,000; that's about 14% of the infantry-cavalry total. Add in the Guard and the artillery headcount and the cavalry count falls a bit.

At Austerlitz Napoleon had 58,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry. Factoring in the gun crews into the total his cavalry must have been about 13, 14% of his strength.

Around 5 or 6 horse to 1 foot seems about right for most of the era. Tabletop armies can be more or less than these proportions, as indeed were actual armies of the era. Eg in 1815 the guns and cavalry of Napoleon's main body were much stronger than Grouchy's army, because Napoleon's included the reserve formations.