Cavalry vulnerability to firearms

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, i just read one site about Polish Hussars.
I was shocked about one thing.
Their surprisingly low casaualties.
Jan Chryzostom Pasek, XVII century soldier, in his diaries describes situation (in 1660 or something), when (according to him) 3000 Muscovy soldiers fired at charging 400 hussars. They killed FOUR men.
This is extreme example, so i will give another, which is also extreme, though.

This time, fighting Gustav Adolph reformed army, commanded by himself.

(1626, Gniew)
First day of the battle Swedish infantry fired in new way, effectively multiplying their firepower by six.
600 Hussars charged few times (3 or more)- against 6 cannons and 600 soldiers.
According to different sources, enemy firepower, and melee with Swedish cavalry inflicted 20 to 50 casaualties. Hussars were shocked by such high casaualties, and because of that they were unable to broke enemy formation, but next day of that battle, after accepting such losses, they managed to break Swedish infantry.


So that's the two examples. Even when fighting against supposedly the best army in Europe of the time, they suffered surprisingly low casaualties. And they managed to win. Actually, only Tartars were able to fight Hussars effectively.(mainly because they were able to avoid them, and harras with their bows)

I don't know about other countries cavalry,though, but if someone wants, i can give you reasons why Hussars were almost invulnerable to firepower.


So my quesion is: it is possible to implement something like this in EU II?

 

[Besuchov]

This was something common during the early era of firearm. The war you refer to is when the Swedish army lernt, at a high price, how to deal with a cavalry charge and the value of using a modern version. After having refined the tactic during the 30 years war. When you look at the war in the 1650-s(the one that started with a cossack revolt and ended with every power in europe except spain involoved) you will see very different results. I just finished a great book on this war ("Den oövervinnerlige" by Peter Englund) but i just returned it to the library so I can't give you exeact figuers. The polish army also learnt from this and towards the end of the war it contained a much larger infantry component.

One factor that helped to keep down the casualty-rate for cavalry was the fact that the horses got hit first and the cavalrymen on foot were'nt much good.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Maur13
I don't know about other countries cavalry,though, but if someone wants, i can give you reasons why Hussars were almost invulnerable to firepower.

COLOR]

#1 They are in a charge. Try hitting anything with a smoothbore musket and it is a nightmare. A fast moving target is well neigh impossible.

#2 Horses are more likly to get hit. The troopers might survive the fall.

#3 Cavalry usually charged disrupted formations so you were not getting the full effect of a musket barrage but instead guys are are already breaking up.

#4 Even if the formation wasn't disrupted then you've got guys facing a wall of angry hooves and swords. A little bit o' nerves annd *poof* you don't hit jack. Throw in that men under stress and panicking are likely to misuse their weapons in this time. Example are forgetting to load the bullet (nice noise but little effect), forgetting to withdraw the ramrod, breaking off the ramroad etc.

#5 Cav was normally used later in a battle game rather than ealrier. Smoke would have a great obscuring effect and so the charging cav might not veen been seen until there was only time for one volley.

Cav losses were usually lower and EU does reflect that since your infantry gets grossly more chewed up than your cav does.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Besuchov, you're right, in time firearms got better accuracy and rate of fire, which eventually ended cavalry supremacy.
(though even in 1920 war, cavalry units were much more effective in combat, on both sides)

About horses losses, yes, they were much higher.

For example, Kircholm 1605, first Polish charge, 300 Hussars against
3900 Swedish infantry and 2200 Kurland cavalry.
Though only 13 Hussars died (17 more were wounded), 150 horses were lost. So horse casaualties were indeed much higher.
And though there were plenty of horses in Poland, those used by Hussars were more expensive than average one. But, give fact that Hussars were professional and well trained soldiers, loss of horse was not that much important.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Re: Re: Cavalry vulnerability to firearms

Originally posted by Sidney


#1 They are in a charge. Try hitting anything with a smoothbore musket and it is a nightmare. A fast moving target is well neigh impossible.

IIRC smoothbore musket is a bit late development, so what about earlier times?AFAIK they didn't aimed at all...

#2 Horses are more likly to get hit. The troopers might survive the fall.

As i stated in previous post, yes.

#3 Cavalry usually charged disrupted formations so you were not getting the full effect of a musket barrage but instead guys are are already breaking up.

Well,that's not right Hussars mainly charged undisrupted formations, and were easily able to break through pikemen covering musketeers.

#4 Even if the formation wasn't disrupted then you've got guys facing a wall of angry hooves and swords. A little bit o' nerves annd *poof* you don't hit jack. Throw in that men under stress and panicking are likely to misuse their weapons in this time. Example are forgetting to load the bullet (nice noise but little effect), forgetting to withdraw the ramrod, breaking off the ramroad etc.

Exactly. Facing a charging cavalry formations, especially that impressive (ever wondered why they used wings?) takes a nerves of steel.
If i might add, there are also examples of muskets loaded with seven bullets:O Of course if one would fire something like that, he won't survive it. Though given fact that infantry was slaughtered after their formation was broken, it doesn't matter...

#5 Cav was normally used later in a battle game rather than ealrier. Smoke would have a great obscuring effect and so the charging cav might not veen been seen until there was only time for one volley.

Well, not at all, Hussars were used as main strike force, usually starting engagement.

#++Cav losses were usually lower and EU does reflect that since your infantry gets grossly more chewed up than your cav does.

Yes, i agree, but when i use cavalry only armies, it's not the case

And there is another reason. Till the development of better firearms, due to high speed of charging cavalry, (10 meters per second in last stage), infatry was able to shot only once.
This is the main reason why new Swedish firing tactic was so effective against cavalry. (6 lines of soldiers fired at once, not one)

 

[Emre Yigit]

Re: Re: Cavalry vulnerability to firearms

Originally posted by Sidney


A fast moving target is well neigh impossible.

LOL!

 

[Carolus Rex]

I read somewhere that at Lützen 1632, there were about 8000 horses lying dead or wounded on the battle field.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

anti-cavalry tactics

I'm not sure exactly, I may be misremembering much, but:

Didn't armies of the time employ mixed infantry units? Some were armed with muskets and some with pikes/halberds.

I thought the pikemen were essentially to deal with cavalry while the muskets were primarily for use against opposing *infantry*.

Also tactics where a great part of the equation - wasn't it quite a while later that square tactics where developed to deal with cavalry?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Re: anti-cavalry tactics

Originally posted by satan
I'm not sure exactly, I may be misremembering much, but:

Didn't armies of the time employ mixed infantry units? Some were armed with muskets and some with pikes/halberds.

I thought the pikemen were essentially to deal with cavalry while the muskets were primarily for use against opposing *infantry*.

Also tactics where a great part of the equation - wasn't it quite a while later that square tactics where developed to deal with cavalry?

You're right, knights-in-armour were made obsolete by pikemens, and especially later, when mixed formations came to life.

That's the reason the West abandoned concept of charging cavalry, and instead treated it as a support force.But, seriously, it was dead end. While it have long tradition (both Roman and Greeks didn't rely on cavalry), till (the middle of) XVIII century, cavalry was always better than infantry.

And no, firepower was supposed to stop cavalry, too.

Point is, pikemen were totally useless against Hussars.
Why?Because Hussar lance was longer.[]

 

[AmbientOyster]

No cavalry had a lance longer than a pike(6m).
Musket fire wasn't ever very effective. In the early period melee and cavalry would be most important and later field guns would be the important factor. Ifantry armed with muskets are cheap and easy to train in comparison to cavalry/artillery, thats the only reason to have a lot of them.

 

[Sir James]

It wasn’t until the C19th that infantry could reliably beat off cavalry with pure firepower (eg ‘Thin Red Line’ at Balaclava). Napoleonic infantry could, in theory, shoot down a cavalry charge, but were generally smart enough not to try.

The lack of casualties in the battles mentioned illustrate the ineffectiveness of early firearms compared to, say, decently trained longbowmen, and show why pikes had to be kept to defend musketeers for such a long period.

 

[Sidney]

Re: anti-cavalry tactics

Originally posted by satan
I'm not sure exactly, I may be misremembering much, but:

Didn't armies of the time employ mixed infantry units? Some were armed with muskets and some with pikes/halberds.

I thought the pikemen were essentially to deal with cavalry while the muskets were primarily for use against opposing *infantry*.

In simple terms each piece had a function. Firearms great virtue in the 16thc was to breakup pike formatiosn so that the other pike squares could disorder than and send them fleeing. Cavalry was the mop up force to turn disorganized withdrawl into headlong flight. Pikes were not purely to fend off the cav but were viewed as the pirmary offensive weapon. Firearms were not terribly effective in the early EU period (slow rates of fire and small numbers) and the main goal of the Teriocs and their imitators in the Landsknechts were to beat the enemy with the push of the pike. The conversion of knights to cavalry took time. The step of having pistol/carbine armed cavalry that fired in a carcole really hurt the role of cavalry (you think hitting something with a musket while standing on foot was tough imagine shooting with a carbine or pistol on horseback) and turned them into non-shock weapons.

The complesity of modeling all the intricacies of this type of combat are tool much for the engine of EU to handle so it does an admirable job of simulating things. Its biggest failing is still the survivability of artillery on the retreat.

 

[unmerged(2920)]

mixed units were the best you can have at the beginning of the EU period and the most advanced and terrible formation was the spanich tercio wich combined musketer and pikemen.

 

[maekh]

well , by that time the weapon wasn't as deadly as they become later.. The weapon were slow and not that powerfull... That gave cavalry a major advantage, they were fast.. I once read about diffrent cavalry tactics used in battle between troops lead by Gustavus Adolphus ánd catholic troops lead by Tilly (i think)..
I don't remember name of the battle, Gustavus won..

the Catholic cavalry used this tactics: They were formed in squares
and used guns.. when the first line fired they turned off and placed themself in last line so that the second line could fire.. when they reloaded..then they kept on doing that...

Instead the Swedish cavalry opened fire with their guns once then they grabbed their swords and rushed in to the enemy infantry, causing a major chock for the infantry..


eventually when the weapons became faster and the bullet extremly deadly the cavalry became very ineffective, because they were gunned down immediatly

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by AmbientOyster
No cavalry had a lance longer than a pike(6m).
Musket fire wasn't ever very effective. In the early period melee and cavalry would be most important and later field guns would be the important factor. Ifantry armed with muskets are cheap and easy to train in comparison to cavalry/artillery, thats the only reason to have a lot of them.

uh?

AFAIK, infantry pike was usually slightly shorter than 5m

Knights lance was at best 4m long.So it's clear that he coulnd't stand against pikemen.
Western-style cavalry abandoned lance, while Hussars began to use (origintated from Hungary) 5-5,5m long lance (it was possible, because their lances were hollow).So it allowed them to retain their charging capability, which is most terrible ability of cavalry (and we all know what happens to infantry if it didn't stand up to cavalry charge...)

 

[unmerged(3459)]

Cavalry only truly lost its effectiveness in WW I. Just take a look at how everything bogged down right to an almost literal crawl as you may gain only a slight amount of ground. Weapons and artillery at that time made it nearly impossible to use horses with any great effectiveness. Prior to that you could still use cavalry in some ways to gain an advantage.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Re: Re: anti-cavalry tactics

Originally posted by Maur13


Point is, pikemen were totally useless against Hussars.
Why?Because Hussar lance was longer.[]

Hussars were not useful for the Poles at Warzaw 1656..
They got blown away by artillery, not pikes, but when they reached the pikes, they only bounced off.
The Swedish pikes were about 8 metres long, so no cavalry unit would ride around with 10 meter pikes, they rodein there with their spears and swords but just bounced, not injuring many, less killing anyone.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by LeeSkye
Cavalry only truly lost its effectiveness in WW I. Just take a look at how everything bogged down right to an almost literal crawl as you may gain only a slight amount of ground. Weapons and artillery at that time made it nearly impossible to use horses with any great effectiveness. Prior to that you could still use cavalry in some ways to gain an advantage.

Cavalry lost a good chunk of its' effectiveness when the pike was adopted by the Swiss and the German Landschnekts. It lost even more of its' effectiveness upon the general adoption of the socket bayonet. Genuine cavalry charges in the Nineteenth century are rare-as is the use of genuine cavalry rather than mounted infantry. Certainly in the British army it only came back into vogue following a misinterpretation of events during the Boer War.

Oh, and as for WWI-cavalry was fairly effectively used on the eastern front (German Uhlans etc.) Mechanisation finally killed the horse's role, but let cavalry evolve.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Yeah, it is more fun to gamble on them!!

 

[unmerged(3459)]

Now THAT'S an idea for EU - "The sport of Kings" - another way to raise money for your treasury! I'm in!!