Has this been discussed?-Cavalry on the Attack [UPDATED]

[Panzer Leader]

[EDITED to draw attention to the fact I discovered more information (and a picture!) in my post further down the page]

Taken From David M. Glantz "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat, the Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942" (pp 104-105)

Colonel P.T. Kursakov, commander of the 20th Cavalry Division, ordered his 103d and 124th Cavalry Regiments to penetrate German positions between Bol'shoe Kropotovo and Maloe Kroptovo "at full gallop," while the 22nd Regiment followed in support. The sudden emergence of the cavalry columns from the snowy gloom caught the German defenders unaware, and a heated battle erupted as the horses and men tore into and through German firing positions in the grove of trees between the two villages After several hours of heavy fighting, Kursakov's two lead regiments made it through the gap with heavy losses, overran a German mortar battery and company strong point, and crossed the Rhzev-Sychevka road.

Now, before everyone starts clamoring that "Horses won't be modelled" I have to say, that I know that. It is too bad, but the difficulties in doing them properly are not justified by the time it would take. This post is more aimed towards the nay-sayers and anti-cavalry grogs who say the following:

This is "out-of-the-scope" of CMBO", or that "Cavalry always fought dismounted" or that "horses were a vehicle to get them to the battlefield". I have never heard of a motorized division rushing to assault the front lines in their vehicles "at full throttle" and I've yet to hear of motorcycle or bicycle troops penetrating dug in defenders while poppin' a wheelie. Here, in this book, however, I have seen yet more proof that, at least on the Soviet side, Cavalry was used in a semi-traditional sense, and was even successful on occaision!

THe books which support the Soviet use of cavalry are this one, Glantz' "When Titans Clashed;" Beevor's "Stalingrad;" and Craig's "Enemy at the Gates." All of these authors, writing from the SOVIET perspective, speak of the cavalry when writing about offensives, and it is a fact THAT IN EVERY MAJOR OFFENSIVE UP TO AND INCLUDING KURSK, SOVIET CAVALRY WERE USED to varying degrees of success. WHat is ALSO clear, is that in the assault, the cavalry charges into combat sabres waving and sub-machine guns blazing.

The account of this particular section in the Mars Operation continues for some pages. In all, until the cavalry are destroyed or foced to halt and defend themselves against a counterattack, they seem to remain mounted. This seems to hold true to other passages I have read, especially about a certain Cavalry Corps who advanced with the Tank Corps in the norhtern pincer of the envelopment of 6th Army at Stalingrad.

What I am trying to understand is, how did they fight? Did they honestly chop the enemy down with drawn sword, did they have rifles that allowed them to shoot while mounted? I know that the Siberian Cossacks at Stalingrad fought with sub-machine-guns while mounted -- was that the standard tactic of the cavalry on attack? Why do so many people violently protest that these tactics were used -- often with limited success -- in WWII?

The bottom line is that the Red Army had huge numbers of cavalry, many Corps worth, and I believe I have counted at least 12 pure cavalry divisions, some of them with the pre-fix "Gaurds" and one with the prefix "Stalin". This leads me to believe that their succes is highly down-played by many historians, especially western, who cannot believe that such an out-dated practice was still successfully employed. They simply look at the Poles and say "It must have been like that all over."

Now then, will CM2 have Cossack Cavaly? I wanna see my siberians whip their panjes into a fightin' fury!

[ April 18, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Bastables]

Qui? Two mounted regt overran a company strong point and two to four mortars with heavy losses after fighting a German infantry company and then just bypassing em to get to the rear. Thats about as effective as “If we throw enough peasants at them they’ll run out of bullets sooner or later". I don't see how you can state that 'western historian' have been downplaying the effectivness if this is a successful WWII Horsie charge.

I agree that there is a place for frontline horsies in CMBB but the problems are with coding them in.

[ April 16, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Panzer Leader]

Actually, thought the quote was meant to give an example of the usage of Cavalry troops, and not a sproof of their success, I can at least do both. The 20th cavalry Division was able to rip a narrow hole through major elements of both the German 78th Infantry and 5th Panzer divisions.

Now granted, they did attack the "seam" between these two divisions, but the Germans knew the night before right where they were going to strike. Also, it is worth mentioning that the cavalry (the 2nd Gaurds Cavalry Corps) had the full support of the 6th Gaurds Tank Corps in this attack.

Incidentally, on day two of the operation, those two regiments were the ONLY Red Army forces to accomplish the DAY ONE objectives for Operation Mars: the splitting of Rhzev-Sychevka road. Now granted. the whole 20th Cavalry division was eventually decimated, but the fact remains that: THEY ACCOMPLISHED THEIR MISSION.

I think that is worthy of note. they did what the vaunted 8th Gaurds Rifle Corps (also supported by the 6th Gaurds Tank Corps) was not able to do.

But please, the quote was a typical example of their use. There are many more and though success varies, it is still success.

[Gen-x87H]

I remember reading about the Poles attacking German lines with Cavalry. Then after they were completely decimated what was left banged their fists on the metal German tanks as they were lead off to the POW camp. Apparently the Polish commanders assured their troops the tanks were made of wood and were only for show.

Gen

[Viceroy]

The Red Army used cavalry that's for sure but both Glantz and Zaloga say that they dismounted for combat. Horses were used for mobility only, by and large, but I'm sure a few charges took place, just kind of rare. So, in the CMBB scale they will fight just like infantry.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Equestrian nonsense

Oi! Bas! Stop prancing around in here like a gelding at the glue factory, and send me a bloody turn. You've had plenty long enough to contemplate your smoking panzers.

Oh, and don't try that "But I was waiting for you" dodge this time.

Edit: speech marks in the wrong place

[ April 17, 2002, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Now then, will CM2 have Cossack Cavaly? I wanna see my siberians whip their panjes into a fightin' fury!

My gods, lad, but you have strange obsessions. Perhaps if you bought yourself a pet? And then shot it after calling it to yourself?

[ April 17, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

[QBBut please, the quote was a typical example of their use. There are many more and though success varies, it is still success.[/QB]

I think that is a misinterpretation. I have read that book and numerous others by Glantz, and the passage you lifted is the only one that I can remember talking of a charge. But feel free to refresh my memory.

While you dig, may I also recommend looking at the US Army's 'Red Army Handbook TM 30-450' from November 1945, in which Soviet Cavalry force tactics are discussed in quite some detail (it is based on the information from Oberst Gehlen's 'Fremde Heere Ost' Department in OKH). It says things like 'Assaults are generally made dismounted' (p.88) or 'Whenever enemy resistance was strong, cavalry units dismounted and attacked together with the tanks' (p.89) 'Rapid transition from mounted to dismounted attack [...] are basic principles in effective pursuit operations.' (p.89) and 'Dismnounted assaults are made simultaneously from all directions' (p.94, talking about pursuit again).

Cavalry was a successful arm of the Red Army, but not because it could attack mounted and scare the Germans by sabre waving. The foundation of its success was its high mobility and speed, combined with the fact that horses don't break down for mechanical reasons (while KV-1s do, a lot). Also, the wide spaces of Russia lent themselves to deep striking operations.

To be frank, I think you are jumping to conclusions based on one example. The success you mention are due to the characteristics I mention above, not due to sabre charges.

Did Soviet cavalry never use sabre charges? No, I am sure they did. Did they use sabre charges when they faced a defender that had fight in them - I don't think so. That is what CMBO models, and realistically, that is what they were there for. Get into the breach, exploit deeply, use maneuver, mobility and speed to surprise the enemy. If you come across a supply column, by all means charge it, but if you come across a prepared defender, use tactics.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

This post is more aimed towards the nay-sayers and anti-cavalry grogs who say the following:

This is "out-of-the-scope" of CMBO", or that "Cavalry always fought dismounted" or that "horses were a vehicle to get them to the battlefield". I have never heard of a motorized division rushing to assault the front lines in their vehicles "at full throttle" and I've yet to hear of motorcycle or bicycle troops penetrating dug in defenders while poppin' a wheelie. Here, in this book, however, I have seen yet more proof that, at least on the Soviet side, Cavalry was used in a semi-traditional sense, and was even successful on occaision!

Some more points regarding your claims:

- motorised divisions in CMBO (and presumably CMBB) are not modelled truck mounted, but as a squad type, therefore your comparison is in effect showing why BTS is right in their approach

- motorcycle battalions (ditto - BTS has made a statement on how they will be modelled, do a search)

- The success of the operation. Well, they broke through, granted. Care to tell us how many of them made it back or what the operational consequence of the breakthrough was? At best this can be described as a Phyrric victory, and I would be generous in doing so.

So, despite you finding one example of a charge, the points remain:

- cavalry charges are outside the scope of CMBB

- horses were a vehicle for cavalry that would get them to the battlefield and enable them to achieve rapid maneuver in difficult terrain

- cavalry as a general rule fought dismounted

None of what you posted disproves that.

[Battlefront.com]

PL

This is "out-of-the-scope" of CMBO", or that "Cavalry always fought dismounted" or that "horses were a vehicle to get them to the battlefield".

Nothing you stated has refuted this. Well, except for anybody that was dumb enough to use the word "never" in connection with Soviet stuff. They pretty much did everything, and more than once

The real question was what the intended use of the horses was. They were, without any doubt, supposed to be used as transport. When the men were to fight, they were supposed to do this dismounted unless the defending force was at a disadvantage enough to make a mounted attack viable. Such battles can, and did happen, but are largely not within CM's scope. Much the same way other forms of specialized warfare are not.

The Germans started out the war with quite a bit of cavalry. Most of it was Regimental recon. Interestingly enough, these guys weren't supposed to fight at all unless it was do or die! That's right, not supposed to fight even dismounted. They were just eyes and ears.

The Germans did have 1 Cavalry Division to start out the war, formed at least 1 full SS Cav div in the middle, and had a couple partial SS Cav divs towards the very end of the war. They also had plentiful numbers of Cossak Cavalry Battalions, Regiments, Brigades, and even 1 (2?) full Divisions by war's end. Unlike the recon mentioned above, these were supposed to fight. But fight dismounted.

The German organization included horse handlers. One handler for every two horses. When the unit was ready to deploy for combat 1/2 of the Squad dismouned (6 men total). The other 1/2 (7 men) led away the dismounted men's horses (6), their own horses (7) and one pack horse used to cary the LMG and ammo. The 7 men and 14 horses were to go to a defendable, safe place to await the conclusion of the action. They would then set up parimeter defense, but would not engage in battle themselves.

The Recon Cav units did NOT have ANY horse handlers. So it was not possible for them to dismount and fight as an effective unit since they lacked the manpower to look after the horses. They also did not have a LMG at all.

Motorcycles were interestingly similar to the above.

Is there a case to be made for the inclusion of horses (or mortorcycles for that matter) in CM? Sure. But it is a weak case given the infrequency that they would contribute more to the realism than they would take away through misuse and gamey abuse. Not to mention the horrible amount of coding time! Yesh... I don't even want to think about that

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

But what about mules?

[Chupacabra]

There's no question that "urrah"-style cavalry charges happened. There's also a big difference between "happened occasionally" and "happened enough to warrant inclusion in a game." If BTS decides to model mounted cavalry, cool, great, wonderful. But I'd rather not a) have the game delayed to do so or lose a vehicle/unit/code change that would be more valuable than a novelty let's-try-this-once-to-see-what-happens kinda thing.

[Skipper]

K.K.Rokossovsky (one of the best soviet front commanders of WWII who spent 20+ years in cavalry, from squadron to cav.corps CO) says that in WWII cavalry was nothing but erzatz motorized infantry.

[ April 18, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Panzer Leader]

Thank you everyone for the constructive comments. I am truly not "obsessed with this wacky idea" of cavalry in the attack, but I am honestly interested in finding out exactlyhow these units were used, and to a lesser extent, how they "theoretically could" be used in a CM battle.

Let me begin by quoting a bit more from the same book I used before, this time page 180:

...At 0625 hours the 20th Army' artillery opened heavy fire on German positions around Podosinovka. Fifteen minutes later the 16th Gaurds Cavalry Division charged through the the cold ground fog into the teeth of the town's defenses... At 0700 hours Pankatrov's 11th Gaurds Cavalry Regiment formed up in the light woods 500 meters south of Maloe Kropotovo and, under the cover of artillery fire from the 4th and 5th Gaurds Separate Cavalry Artillery Battalions, charged against the village's defenses.... While the Germans defending in Bol'shoe Kropotovo were preoccupied with fending off the Soviet frontal assault, COlonel Ivanov's 100th Tank Brigade lunged westward south of the town across the wooded terrain still littered with the corpses of cavalrymen and horses, fallen just days before.

...As glorious as the cavalry chargtes were, the determined effort faltered from the start. The German defenders clung grimly to their positions, pouring volley after volley of accurate fire into the ranks of attacking cavalry and infantry...

....Pankatrov's two cavalry regiments repeatedly attacked Maloe Krapotovo and Podosinovka, and when their horses died beneath them, the cavalry fought on foot with the infantry...

OK, so I think unless D.M. Glantz is inaccurate, and I believe him to be as well respected as ANY WW2 historian, especially on Soviet strategy, unless he is wrong, the cavalry in this battle fought in a traditional way. Now, this particular battle, Operation Mars, was happening concurrent with the Stalingrad battle (Uranus -- which incidentally featured the usage of strong Cavalry elements in the encirclement) and Operation Mars was led by the Deputy Supreme Commander Zhukov, who chose THIS operation, rather than Stalingrad, to command. Under him were Marshall Konev, and many of the Soviet Unions most famous and successful commanders. In addition, this operation was planned for MONTHS before it took place.

What this tells me is that the greatest minds of the Soviet Army orchestrated this operation to the most minute detail. And the cavalry charged. Like they charged in Stalingrad. Like they charged the previous winter in the battle for Moscow. Like they would charge the next summer in Kursk. So where, I wonder, are the facts that establish that Soviet cavalry was basically a "mobile infantry unit"?

Now, this leads me to my second point, and that is, as Steve suggested, the Germans used much less-deadly techniques with their small (two divisions - Florian Geyer and Nord?) cavalry force. However, the Soviets, with a much larger force, used them more often and with much different tactics. I am beginning to believe that the "traditional cavalry charge" in fact was the traditional usage of these troops throughout the war. I have found five separate histories which recount their usage as such, four of them from the Soviet perspective, and nothing except what Andreas and Skipper wrote, to refute my "working hypothesis."

I am suspicious that "western minds" are discounting the efforts, skills, techniques, and contributions of Soviet cavalry, simply because they do not fit in with "their idea" of how the war was fought and how it should have been fought.

(Skipper -- could you please tell me where you learned that about Rokossovsky?)

Where does this fit into CM? Well, I admit it would be damn cool to see it happen in a game of CM. I would love to see such battles as modern "Last Charge of the Light brigade" ( -- which I am wondering might be the reason why so many seem to recoil from my assumption) and other battles on our little digital battlefield, but I totally understand Steve's hesitation as far as coding and modelling are concerned. To be honest, as much as anyone else, there are other features I would much more like to see -- relative spotting, lighting affects, etc. However, that said, if my poorly worded and shoddily researched theory happens to bare some fruit as to how the cavalry fought, I honestly think that this is something to consider adding to the features. If not for CMBB (please not - I want the game to bad!) than at least at some unspecified "future date."

Could it be used gamily? Who knows? Steve, do you consider adding or not adding historical units based on whether or not they could be mis-used? I wouldn't think so. After all, if it is modelled correctly, it will behave correctly, no?

Sorry for pressing the point, but right or wrong, I honestly am curious and WANT TO KNOW what the "real deal" is.

[Panzer Leader]

Oh one other thing -- anyone know what type of rifles the (?)cavaliers(?) have resting against there chests? It seems to be a submachine gun. Also, I am trying to discern from that photo if shooting while on the move would be possible. Cool pic, nonetheless...

[Skipper]

His very own memoir. Rokossovskiy K.K. "Soldier's duty", Voenizdat 1988

He doesn't say that mounted charges were not practiiced at all, just that they didn't work, it was well known since WWI, and therefore mounted charges were not usually practiced.

Besides, I've once read a long interview with a cavalry sergeant, who served on horse in 1941-1944. He said something along the same lines - he did several mounted charges during deep raids, but only on weak rear units, caught on the move. If enemy was even hastily dug in, they always dismounted.

[Skipper]

The "rifle" seems to be PPSh SMG. Shooting on the move - if only for the noise effect.

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Skipper:

The "rifle" seems to be PPSh SMG. Shooting on the move - if only for the noise effect.

Well... I guess it would still have its "suppresive" ability. I thought that was a ppsh. I will look for the Rokossovskiy book. No luck so far though...

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I wanna see my siberians whip their panjes into a fightin' fury!

The very great majority of cossacks do not come from Siberia. The Don & Kuban being the largest groups

[Andreas]

Are you 100% sure that those are actual pictures of an attack? I doubt it, from the position of the photographer in the lower picture. Zaloga in his 'Red Army Handbook' has a picture of a charge but labels it as training/posed, and not actual combat, IIRC.

The further info you provide from Glantz very clearly indicates to me that charges just were not successful. So much so that Gehlen's information appears to dismiss them as a tactic by 1943, which is supported by Skipper's info.

Edited because I can not tell 'upper' from 'lower'.

[ April 19, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Chupacabra]

I'd agree with Andreas - the pictures look staged. Especially the second one - the photographer would have to be standing directly in the line of a)the charging cavalry and return fire from the enemy. Now, there is dedication to one's art, and then there is flat-out stupidity. It is almost certainly propaganda.

[Andreas]

I would also recommend reading John Keegan's discussion of cavalry charges in 'The Face of Battle' (IIRC). That should dispel some illusions about them.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I'd agree with Andreas - the pictures look staged. Especially the second one - the photographer would have to be standing directly in the line of a)the charging cavalry and return fire from the enemy. Now, there is dedication to one's art, and then there is flat-out stupidity. It is almost certainly propaganda.

The sad truth is that most war photographs tend to be staged, especially the more memorable ones. And nowadays, through the wonders of digital photography, you can even move the Sphinx if your National Geographic study of the Pyramids in Egypt needs that little something extra.

"Yeah, I know there's nobody in there, but could you attack that abandoned bunker a few more times untill I get this shot right ?"

[Terence]

Its true, about staged photos.

Although the Red Army during the Second World War had photographers taking pictures of actual fighting (more, I've been told than the western allies had) many popular photos have been staged, including that famous picture of the Red Army hoisting the flag over the Reichstag.

The photographer, Evgeney Khaledi, posed this and a great many other photos. Hell -- he brought his own flag, made from a red tablecloth taken from (I believe) the Tass Cafeteria.

Not only that, the picture was altered after it was shot. One of the soldiers had two watches, and one was taken out, (so the Soviet soldier would not appear to have been a looter) and the smoke clouds were fiddled with to make the scene look more dramatic.

This is not meant to take anything away from Kaldei, who had tons of guts and is one of the finest photographers of the century. When he arrived in Berlin with his hand made Soviet flag, he coralled some soldiers, and hotfooted it to the Reichstag where he set up and shot the photo. He took a couple different versions.

He says they slipped and slid over the blood on the stairs when they were rushing up to the roof, and they could hear some die hard Nazis in the basement still battling it out with the Russians.

Hell of a story, really...

[Gyrene]

Did the Cossaks use tripods for their sabers?

Gyrene