We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In all of www we dont see cavalery being made is it so bad that its not any good?
Hungary has a lot of land exp so it shouldynt be a problem to make big cavalery div and give it arty company by removing arty from inv (where that small number isnt making much difrence) creating fast and hard hiting unit.
I personaly would use cavalry mostly as MP to supress unrest from rising or as fast and cheap garrison units to delay the enemy advance to give my regular divisions time to arrive. I personaly usually never really use that much cavalry in my games.
Cavalry isnt useless however. Infact, it is better than regular infantry. It is faster than regular infantry (obviously) and has double the organization and also 5 points of suppresion, but at the same it isnt nearly as expensive as motorized divisions and their supply consumtion also is much lower.
Here are the (most recent) stats of a cavalry battalion compared to a infantry battalion. As you can see the cavalry is 20% more expensive in infantry equipment and costs 10 points more production but comes with double the organization and already has 5 points of suppresion. Ignore the speed, that is how the battalion affects the current divisions speed.
That is only partially true. Infact, cavalry is stronger than regular infantry (see comparison above) since it has more organization and suppresion, but costs 20% more equipment and 10 points more production. Other than that aside from speed both are identical.
It should be pointed out that stats are subject to change since they are still in the balancing, but i doubt that cavalry will all of the sudden get worse than regular infantry.
Its a niche unit specialising in low infrastructure regions, although the european majors have little use for them, there is still the rest of the world to think about.
those screenshots were taken from the yapan world war wednesday episodes. At that particular moment he showcased the nato symbols and tabbed through the individual battalions in an already existing (faster) division. If he would add the battalions to that template they would go slower by that much, i.e rather than 12km/h they would go 4km/h and 6,4km/h, since infantry is 4km/h fast and cavalry is 6.4km/h fast.
those screenshots were taken from the yapan world war wednesday episodes. At that particular moment he showcased the nato symbols and tabbed through the individual battalions in an already existing (faster) division. If he would add the battalions to that template they would go slower by that much, i.e rather than 12km/h they would go 4km/h and 6,4km/h, since infantry is 4km/h fast and cavalry is 5.6km/h fast.
uhh, no. thats not what i said. A division can only go as fast as the slowest battalion, thats why the speed drops by 8km/h or 5.6km/h, because the tanks need to slow down for the infantry/cavalry.
uhh, no. thats not what i said. A division can only go as fast as the slowest battalion, thats why the speed drops by 8km/h or 5.6km/h, because the tanks need to slow down for the infantry/cavalry.
Its a niche unit specialising in low infrastructure regions, although the european majors have little use for them, there is still the rest of the world to think about.
In 1939/40 France still fielded a mixed truck/Cavalry formation - the Light Division - which was employed in the defence of France itself, in the Ardennes. They were easily overrun, but they existed, and they fought in the front line in the defence of their country.
As for those who overran them - It is often overlooked and rarely appreciated that Germany, considered by many to be one of the most mechanised nations of all in WWII, weren't actually as mechanised as their popular image suggests. Even at their peak, only about 50 of their 300 and more divisions were motorised or mechanized - and after about 1942/43 this only got worse again. The vast majority of German infantry units still marched on foot the old way, with their supplies, heavy arms and equipment drawn by horse, just like in WWI.
Furthermore, although in the early years of the war Germany's proper cavalry units were reduced in number, as things became more difficult for them they actually raised MORE cavalry. Cavalry strength grew from less than one division in 1942 to six cavalry divisions - two Cavalry Corps - by 1945!
So it seems to me that certain European powers still had a LOT of use for cavalry, even to the end of the war.
I personaly would use cavalry mostly as MP to supress unrest from rising or as fast and cheap garrison units to delay the enemy advance to give my regular divisions time to arrive. I personaly usually never really use that much cavalry in my games.
Cavalry isnt useless however. Infact, it is better than regular infantry. It is faster than regular infantry (obviously) and has double the organization and also 5 points of suppresion, but at the same it isnt nearly as expensive as motorized divisions and their supply consumtion also is much lower.
Here are the (most recent) stats of a cavalry battalion compared to a infantry battalion. As you can see the cavalry is 20% more expensive in infantry equipment and costs 10 points more production but comes with double the organization and already has 5 points of suppresion. Ignore the speed, that is how the battalion affects the current divisions speed.
That is only partially true. Infact, cavalry is stronger than regular infantry (see comparison above) since it has more organization and suppresion, but costs 20% more equipment and 10 points more production. Other than that aside from speed both are identical.
It should be pointed out that stats are subject to change since they are still in the balancing, but i doubt that cavalry will all of the sudden get worse than regular infantry.
Thank you for this very illuminating - and surprising - screen shot. In previous HOI cavalry were faster than infantry but not quite as effective in combat - especially in defense. That disparity now seems to be non existent - so cavalry are now simply fast and better organized "Mobile Infantry", with better suppression, that are only slightly more expensive than infantry and use more supplies? (at least unless they get "balanced"). Fascinating. I wonder if they are still worse over certain terrain than infantry.
I'm almost tempted to raise a division or two of these "mobile Infantry" just for the joy of it.
Modern Belarus divided between USSR and Poland during the interwar period was a region, where cavalry was chosen consciously over tanks. In the Polish army modernisation program, that did not take place because of Fall Weiss (German invasion of 1939). The reasons included very poor (mostly boat-based) transport infrastructure in that are, which translated into huge difficulties in supplying fuel and moving the mechanised forces around the theatre. Army officials took such a decision despite their own forecast, that cavalry divisions are soon going to become more expensive in upkeep than their mechanised/tank-based counterparts. I don't have access to that report now, but I will do my best to get direct quotes for interested. Cavalry was not some kind of a make-do cheap and outdated military unit. It simply became very specialised.
Besides, the reason why e.g. French Army did not have considerable amount of cavalry units was the experience of trench warfare of WW1 (where the war of manoeuvre ended very quickly) not their anticipation of Blitzkrieg-tactics. In the latter case the cavalry would be actually much more useful than endless masses of slow infantry depending on fortifications, which proved so useful in the previous war.
not their anticipation of Blitzkrieg-tactics. In the latter case the cavalry would be actually much more useful than endless masses of slow infantry depending on fortifications, which proved so useful in the previous war.
Cavalry was not some kind of a make-do cheap and outdated military unit. It simply became very specialised.
Besides, the reason why e.g. French Army did not have considerable amount of cavalry units was the experience of trench warfare of WW1 (where the war of manoeuvre ended very quickly) not their anticipation of Blitzkrieg-tactics. In the latter case the cavalry would be actually much more useful than endless masses of slow infantry depending on fortifications, which proved so useful in the previous war.
To follow on from your wise statement: the first month or so of the war in 1914 (august - September) were really very fluid and mobile indeed; in one month of advance, the German attack reached as far as 100 miles from Paris before they were forced to pull back slightly and "dug in" from coast to coast. At the end of the war, Germany's all or nothing last gasp offensives in March - August 1918, that saw German forces undo the small Allied advances of three years and again get as close to 80 miles from Paris, were followed by the Allied counter advance, August - November 1918 that returned the battle lines more or less to the original national borders, before the German government accepted that their army could do no more. Which is to say, that although cavalry had little to do 1915 - 1917 (and many cavalry units operated as infantry as a result in that time), Cavalry were of use in the offensives of 1914 and 1918 - even if the 1918 battles were largely fought through the trenches of the previous three years.
So there was still plenty of movement in the First World War - in the beginning, and at the end - and so plenty of opportunity for cavalry there; but the trenches are all most people remember, for very understandable reasons.
Regarding the usefulness of cavalry in "blitzkrieg" type rapid manoeuvre in WWII - unless I am mistaken, did not Germany deploy high numbers of bicycle equipped infantry for similar reasons?
France did have a semi-motorized light cavalry division - just the one, but they had it. But they likely did not have more because, at least on their German frontier, they had become very strategically defensive minded - and to them that meant the Maginot line fortresses, and likely, trenches again. The British for their part mechanised all of their home grown cavalry. But meanwhile Germany, the most offensive, mobile and mechanized minded of the three, rather curiously never completely disposed of their cavalry - and actually were fielding two whole Corps of them by war's end. I find that so remarkable, that the nation renowned for it's wartime mechanisation is the one that kept the most cavalry in the west. (In Europe, only the USSR fielded more).
France did have a semi-motorized light cavalry division - just the one, but they had it. But they likely did not have more because, at least on their German frontier, they had become very strategically defensive minded - and to them that meant the Maginot line fortresses, and likely, trenches again. The British for their part mechanised all of their home grown cavalry. But meanwhile Germany, the most offensive, mobile and mechanized minded of the three, rather curiously never completely disposed of their cavalry - and actually were fielding two whole Corps of them by war's end. I find that so remarkable, that the nation renowned for it's wartime mechanisation is the one that kept the most cavalry in the west. (In Europe, only the USSR fielded more).
France actually had a number of these light cavalry divisions. Most were formed during the mobilization when the peace-time cavalry divisions were broken up. There were also a number of spahi brigades (light North-African cavalry, entirely on horseback), an independent cavalry brigade (formerly belonging to one of the dissolved cavalry divisions), mounted recon groups and some mounted elements in the Foreign Legion. So France had way more cavalry than just one division.
In contrast, Germany only mobilized a single cavalry division in 1939 (the division also participated in the Western campaign). This division was formed in East Prussia, where, due to its geographical isolation, basically all available troops were mobilized at the beginning of the war to prepare for a possible Polish attack. The late-war cavalry divisions were seriously understrength and/or supposed to be manned by foreign personnel (usually volunteer SS or Eastern-front type formations), so their actual combat value was not very high. So there's not really that much about Germany's cavalry in WW2.
uhh, no. thats not what i said. A division can only go as fast as the slowest battalion, thats why the speed drops by 8km/h or 5.6km/h, because the tanks need to slow down for the infantry/cavalry.
I personaly would use cavalry mostly as MP to supress unrest from rising or as fast and cheap garrison units to delay the enemy advance to give my regular divisions time to arrive. I personaly usually never really use that much cavalry in my games.
Cavalry isnt useless however. Infact, it is better than regular infantry. It is faster than regular infantry (obviously) and has double the organization and also 5 points of suppresion, but at the same it isnt nearly as expensive as motorized divisions and their supply consumtion also is much lower.
Here are the (most recent) stats of a cavalry battalion compared to a infantry battalion. As you can see the cavalry is 20% more expensive in infantry equipment and costs 10 points more production but comes with double the organization and already has 5 points of suppresion. Ignore the speed, that is how the battalion affects the current divisions speed.
That is only partially true. Infact, cavalry is stronger than regular infantry (see comparison above) since it has more organization and suppresion, but costs 20% more equipment and 10 points more production. Other than that aside from speed both are identical.
It should be pointed out that stats are subject to change since they are still in the balancing, but i doubt that cavalry will all of the sudden get worse than regular infantry.
