Is cavalry useless???

I wa charging downhill a single unit of Saracen Infantry with mix of 1 Chivalric an 2 Feudal Knights, all well armoured.
They should tread muslims into the ground in few seconds
And yet Saracens stood well the assault, despite notice "losing badly" they lost 2 guys while my cavalry about 20
This game begins to screw me up.
Is any chance for cavalry to perform spectacular, quick frontal charge, ot only against peasants?
What was heavy cavalry developed for? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif

I'd like to use knights as haunting bastards over isolated groups of enemy troops. It is rather imposible because they usually cannot release from the first clash and are involved in melee when main forces of infantry arrive...

I beleive high-end knights (teutonic,chivalric,lancers) can win against any spearmen at equal valor, the knights engage in 1 line.

Well dont send cav head on against good spears unless you also flank them either using a 1-2 rank line or with another cav unit.

If doing a frontal assault what you really want is to pin down the enemy foot while exploiting any holes in his line to flank and rear him.

CBR

Spears and pikes cancel the frontal cavalry charge.

But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...

well pikemen should be cavarly proof if charged from the front, only if they are flanked should you be able to break them.
spearmen shouldnt be cavalry proof though, knights should go right through them like butter.
i never send in knights first though, i always use shock infantry and then send my cavalry round behind to neutralise the missile units. whilst this is happening my own missile units are raining down hell on the melee protected by pikemen.

Must be a kid.... read some more history.... if cav could do all that you think or hoped they could do then why would anyone have ever fielded armies of spearmen? If cav where what you belive then armies would have been all cav and nothing else, they were in fact inferior in cambat to well organized inf......the reason for them on a battle field was for their mobility, attacking the enemies rear or flanks that were unreachable to the superior but slower inf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...

---

Wrong

At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them

Its the same with Cavalry You can well use them in a frontal charge ... but not without Infantery following them
They have the same problems like Tanks in a situation like that. Always let your infanterie follow your cav units ... and when the Cavalry has engaged the enemy ... swarm them with your Infantery to support your Cavalry.

Stand alone, Cavalry was a total waste ... especialy on difficult ground like hills or woods, God loves the Infantery.

PS: The Blitzkrieg was acieved because the superior German tanks trashed the Polish frontline and the German Infantery followed them to tak over Control and act as a future Garrison.

PPS: A stand alone German Tiger was captured by a Polish group of Kid Pathfinders in the assault on Poland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...

---

Heavy cavalry wasn't "invented" it evolved.

And it did not evolve to ride down spearmen - the first heavy cavalry evolved to resist archery - the Cataphracts of Parthia are most easily explained as the answer to vast numbers of cheap horse archers - fully armoured cavalry that were pretty much impervious.

Such cavalry proved marginally useful vs infantry tho - Carrhae (53BC) is a good example of their inabilty to simply ride down infantry despite considerable advantages, and lesser known Parthian invasions of Roman Asia in 39 and 38BC also foundered upon the legions.

The Seleucid successors to the Parthians also used heavy cavalry - both archers and lancers, and Roman tactics were to charge them with infantry as soon as possible But the battles were often very tough.

Medieval cavalry evolved from nobility and riches. Horse soldiers have almost always been higher ranked than foot in all societies, and so nobles looked to ride as soon as they could afford it. Being the richest they also tended to be the ones who could afford armour and extra weapons.

So medieval european heavy cavalry "evolved" to suit the vanity of the nobilty

There are also numberous examples of heavy cavalry not riding down infatry as long as the infantry kepts it's cool - Hastings (1066) is a great one since it shows bot that and also what happens if the infantry loses it's cohesion.

Courtrai in 1302 is often touted as the first time infantry defeated medieval heavy cavalry, but there are many, many other occasions where infantry stood against cavalry.

It did require reasonably good infantry tho - able and willing to hold their nerve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Dec. 01 2002,14:32)]At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them

---

The designers also neglected to equip them with machine guns. :S

This is a game, not a simulation. It's not supposed to be accurate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Dec. 01 2002,14:32)]At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them

---

Erm, those were Ferdinands, not Elephants. And they were tank destroyers, which means fixed gun and no turret, and inherently more vulnerable to infantry. On top of that, they didn't have machine guns, as NK mentioned.

And it's strange that none of those 3 units of knights were able to flank, even by simply enveloping the Saracens. They can usually still kill a decent amount of spearmen, even through frontal charge, but they are way too precious to be used that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (NinjaKilla @ Dec. 01 2002,15:35)]This is a game, not a simulation. It's not supposed to be accurate

---

huh??

what double-speak is this?

why is a "game" "not supposed to be accurate"?

And what's the difference betwen a game and a simulation? Especially when the "game" quite specifically in all it's advertising makes a popint of being a historical simulation??? (or at least words which I certainly took to mean the same thing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...

---

haven't youn seen Brave Heart???

Chivalry = 0 against spears and pikes.

I think Hakonarson has covered the point. Armour got heavier to counter-balance the increasing effectiveness of ranged weapons. Of course the heavier armour also made them better against less well armoured knights...provided they could get them to stand for melee.

If it bore no relation to the historical period, why call it "Medieval"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

Ah....Braveheart - the most historically accurate movie since The Life of Brian

You know it's a serious conversation when ppl are using Braveheart as a source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif

German Ferdinand tanks had the nickname of Elephant tanks. "Tiger" isn't actually the official name for that German panzer we hear so much about, it was called the Mark VII. And to compare heavy cavalry to Elephant tanks, or any tanks, is totally inaccurate. The Ferdinand was perhaps the worst designed tank of the entire war--no machine guns was only one of a plethora of problems with it. That's why only 90 were made ;P Also, to call Kluge, Guderian, Hoth and Manstein "stupid" German commanders is to imply Patton and Eisenhower were 60- IQ Downs' syndrome half senile senior citizens who needed their aides to help them on with their Depends every morning.


P.S. The assault on Poland was in September 1939. The German "Tiger" tank wasn't in use until late 1942 and not in mass use until 1943. I'd suggest spending a little more time with reputable history sources before posting that nonsense on the forums, thanks :P

Sorry folks, but I've been a WWI--WWII buff for ten years now, since I was eight years old, and things like this have been bugging me for a long time.

Here we go again?

After the patch cavalry has improved somewhat. Spears aren`t as effective against cavalry which makes the game more fun. If you ain`t happy just mod your cavalry`s charge bonus.

BTW I don`t think Tiger tanks were around in 1939. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (deutschlanduberalles @ Dec. 01 2002,20:38)]German Ferdinand tanks had the nickname of Elephant tanks. "Tiger" isn't actually the official name for that German panzer we hear so much about, it was called the Mark VII. And to compare heavy cavalry to Elephant tanks, or any tanks, is totally inaccurate. The Ferdinand was perhaps the worst designed tank of the entire war--no machine guns was only one of a plethora of problems with it. That's why only 90 were made ;P Also, to call Kluge, Guderian, Hoth and Manstein "stupid" German commanders is to imply Patton and Eisenhower were 60- IQ Downs' syndrome half senile senior citizens who needed their aides to help them on with their Depends every morning.


P.S. The assault on Poland was in September 1939. The German "Tiger" tank wasn't in use until late 1942 and not in mass use until 1943. I'd suggest spending a little more time with reputable history sources before posting that nonsense on the forums, thanks :P

Sorry folks, but I've been a WWI--WWII buff for ten years now, since I was eight years old, and things like this have been bugging me for a long time.

---

Ok, just one last comment and then I'll stop the hijacking.

Tigers were mark VI, not VII.

Ferdinand was also a nickname for Panzerjäger Tiger(P). They were renamed (re-nicknamed ?) Elephants after the modernization. And they were not tanks, but tank destroyers. Big difference. Also, quite effective at long ranges at tank destruction, which was their main purpose, but very vulnerable to infantry, and with a lot of mechanical problems.

So be careful before you slap people for incomplete information.

Actually they were Jagdpanzers, not Panzer Jaegers - the panzer jaegers were lightly armoured AT vehicles, Jagdpanzers were very heavily armoured.

The official title I have is 8.8cm Pak43/2 L/71 auf Pz.Jag Tiger(P) 'Elephant frueher Ferdinand' SdKfz 184 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

And the reason "only" 90 were built was nothing to do with the vehicle itself.

Rather they were built to use 90 chassis that had no other purpose and would otherwise have had to be scrapped. The 90 chassis were those of the Porsche design for their proposed Tiger. They lost the competition to Henschel and so somethign had to be done with their chassis.

Actually the Ferdinand/Elephant was a very successful tank destroyer, especially in Russia. It was later used in Italy where it was much less successful - it's forte was long range tank killing - the wide open steppes were perfect for it - the hills and mountains of Italy were not

Is thisrelevant to MTW? Hell yes - horses for courses http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif The best weapon system can be useless if you use it badly

www.achtungpanzer.com


Just thought I'd end all debate about this subject http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Anything you could ever want to know about the different german tanks of WW2 is there, and more.

And send the guy a contribution, he bloody well earned it.

Yeah, I apologize for my mark VII typo and for referring to the Ferdinand as a tank and not a tank destroyer. I was wrong there, and I suppose I should have looked over that post a little more carefully before I replied. Not quite the same thing as stating Tigers were used in the assault on Poland, but hey, who am I to judge. And I don't suppose that the Ferdinand's awful performance in Russia led Germany to decide against producing any more of the things, since that would make too much sense--after all, the Porsche chassis was so incredibly difficult to make and all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif . When I say "Only 90 Ferdinands were produced because of their awful performance" that's just what I mean, and that is 100% accurate. Germany used the Ferdinands in Kursk as a kind of testing ground, and due to their awful performance, decided against producing any more. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If they had been as successful as Hitler and Guderian had hoped, more would have been made.

I think today I'll look up some of my WWII armaments books and post some specs and quotes about how terrible the Ferdinand was and what a waste and a deathtrap it was, if this topic is still alive by the time I get home from work tonight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif[I]

Historically speaking could a spear stop a horse or was it just pikes? I thought spears should be thrown http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

ROFLMAO man I love those hardcore history arguements How many times around here do you say something a bit careless and before you know it some hardcore mofo has just beaten your ass to a pulp. Great stuff Keep it up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

Hakonarson - yes this is a game rather than a simulation. Do you really thing its accurate to have groups of forty knights always sitting around in squares looking absolutely identical? That groups of 60 samurai warriors always used the same equipment and units could be distinguished according to it? I won't go on... needless to say that the primary point of a popular computer game is to make it playable. It helps if its based on a historical period, but at the end of the day, much of the accuracy go out of the window 'cos its gonna play well.

Actually, the heavy cav in the game defeats lower spearmen quiet well. You can break spearmen and even feu-sgts with chiv-knights. Even chiv-sgts usually loose more than they kill, they just win because they`re so many. Sar inf are pretty tough, did you check if they had higher valour?
The point is, you can use cav against almost everything except pikemen and high spearmen, but it`s more effective to flank the enemy or attack units that are weak against cav (and that`s not just peasants).
So, flank your foe, charge his archers with chiv knights, watch 30 archers die on impact and love the game again.

Frontal assault of cavalry against infantry armed with pointed pole weapons (be it spear, javelin, pike, or even tree branch stack in the ground) is actually historically correct: the cavalry lose all the time.

Even in modern time, frontal assault of tank against well fortified infantry without infantry support is a losing tactic. There is no more pikes, but anti-tank weapons are far cheaper to produce, so in effect, infantry armed with anti-tank missile weapons is the modern spear unit.

German Panzer in WW-II was capitalizing on a few French "mistakes":

1. France didn't man anti-tank units on the North Side of the Maginot line (I believe at the Ardene forest) because France believe tanks couldn't cross the dense forest; In fact, the middle of French defence was weak.

2. France was fortifying the Maginot line, which is the Southern part of the French defense against Germany. Germany never made frontal assault on the Maginot line. The line was flanked.

3. France didn't react fast enough to capitalize on the fact that German Panzer were advancing without Infantry support (German Panzer commander was bold and daring and didn't follow his order of waiting for infantry division for support; he advanced far into French territory. It could be different with French commanders reacted fast and trap that Panzer division, WW-II wouldn't be the same).

I only put up some of the facts as rebutal to the idea that tanks or Heavy Cavalry can overrun defensive units in all circumstance.

The game certainly doesn't reflect reality, but the model is close enough.

Annie

I would also like to mention that the France had more AND better tanks than the germans, especially the Somua; their strategy was wrong. Rather then making mass units of tanks with infantry support, they spread them out like islands amidst a sea of infantry: not a good tactic. I would also like to point out the fact that the comp seems to have invincible cav. I charged one group of 20 level 2 valor Kataphraktoi with three groups of Vikings and 2 of Woodsmen. I lost utterly Maybe because I suck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
However, I would also like to point out that in the modern age, tanks ARE the principle out and out fighters. In urban, infantry rule. However, in conventional warfare, the only thing that can easily kill a tank

whoops As i was saying. The only thing that can kill a full-fledged tank, like the Abrahms, would be another tank. RPG's and TOWS can disable, but not destroy current tanks. By the time you can get one shot off, if the tanker is any good, your dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Dec. 02 2002,16:46)]whoops As i was saying. The only thing that can kill a full-fledged tank, like the Abrahms, would be another tank. RPG's and TOWS can disable, but not destroy current tanks. By the time you can get one shot off, if the tanker is any good, your dead

---

Oh really??

I'm sure that'll be good news to the world'sarmies -they can do away with all those expensive AT weapons now, because they don't work

Rofl - where did you get this idea from??

you can forget using RPGs against tanks,their armour was supposed to absorb the damage.unless you have more than 3 or 4 soldiers with an rpg the possibility of disabling the tank is higher,destroying it is another story...btw try destroying a leclerc with an rpg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

back to topic,the knights albiet powerful are not meant to charge against a wall of spears their main purpose was to run down archers and men-at-arms(speaking from the games prespective and not historically),and they are "saracens" after all they were meant to kill "frankish" crusaders.

i tried a custom battle against the saracens,they only lost 18 while i lost 37,also i played as the saracens against the knights and lost 23 while they lost 39,all without upgrades,and on flat terrain.chiv knights are much like any crusader knight they have the same stats,also since they are the same i did'nt bother using the crusaders i simply used the chivs in custom battle.the exception is the templars i think they did more damage becuase they are armed with swords.one last thing before i goto sleep,the knights charge did more damage than an ordinary attack so consider charging them if you are desperate,also if you charge and retreat then recharge again you might break their lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Dec. 02 2002,16:42)]I would also like to mention that the France had more AND better tanks than the germans, especially the Somua; their strategy was wrong. Rather then making mass units of tanks with infantry support, they spread them out like islands amidst a sea of infantry: not a good tactic.

---

The best French tanks had generally better armour and beter guns than the German ones, but hte vast majority of French tanks weer the rather useless Renault and Hotchkiss models with 2 man crews and usually a short and utterly ineffective 37mm gun.

I read an account of tank encounters in France recently. Apparently the good French tanks were quite capable of taking on small numbers of German tanks and defeatign them, however as numbers got larger command and control became as important as guns and armour.

And here the French had a huge disadvantage. Most of their tanks had 1 man turrets - the commander also had to load, aim and fire the main gun. If he commanded a platoon or a company (or larger) then he also had to direct their actions.

So in actions where manouvre and control were important the French weer at a major disadvantage.

As numbers in actions got higher the French lost more.

It's not always about arms and armour - you've also got to be able to get them in the right place and then usee them properly.

As the French and English found out in the Hundred Years War - some things never change.

As for tanks being the be-all of armies - apparently it's still axiomatic that the only way to win a war is to have your infantry occupy the enemy's land.

I hear tanks can be quite useful at helping the infantry do that tho.