Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
According to the historical documentary i've watched earlier, regarding to 18th century Prussian cavalry (actually a Cuirassier unit). The documentary featured the cav training programs, where not only the cavs are trained the horseback riding (or actually how to unmounting 'on the fly'), swordsfightings, gunslinging, and .. uh... Maths (are these cavs required to calculate anything more than the proper horsefeed and the minimum distances to charge the enemy ranks??).... they were trained how to fight like a generic line infantry... this includes bayonet charges... and how to fight with them.). Later in Silesian Wars, these cavs charged the artillery and... instead of cutting arty crews with sabers in the same way any cavs do, they jumped off the horse and did a bayonet fights on foot!!! from my understandings, Cavs didn't regularly use bayonets, this includes carbiners.
1. Where did thse cavs get bayonet muskets?
2. And did they really get line infantry trainings?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 15:11:33
It sounds a bit strange.The only thing I can think of is that in the mid to late 17th century, there was a type of cavalry called dragoons, who were in fact mounted infantry and carried muskets.
During the 18th century, dragoons tended to be absorbed into normal heavy cavalry organisation and equipment. By Napoleonic times, Dragoons and Kurassiers were just different names for heavy cavalry.
Depending on the time period, Cavalry did not always fight on horse back. Ancient chariots for example were for mobility, not riding through a wall of guys (you're typical ancient chariot wouldn't survive that).
A Dragoon (depending) for example was technically a soldier who rode a horse but fought on foot in the earliest incarnations. This was how many Cavalry in the Civil War and the Indian Wars fought most of the time as well. General infantry training was also probably taught because you never knew when terrain or circumstance might force cavalry to dismount.
Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
In fact, from the latter half of the 19th Century onwards, this one of the two main way in which cavalry were employed. Either they would be used as mobile infantry, using their speed to then deploy where they were needed/where regular or later mechanised infantry couldn't get to and fight on foot, or they would be used against an enemy force that was already in retreat to catch the fleeing enemy and make the retreat a rout (this was their most common employment in the First World War, rather than the somewhat ridiculous perception of a cavalry charge against entrenched machine guns. Infantry would break the line, then mounted troops if available would be used to run down the enemy forces).
I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff. Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik. In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart. My guess is that they dismount to attack the cannon crew because they do not want to risk their really expensive horses getting killed or injured.
I also want to know where the Austrians got those rapid-loading cannons. And why that is their entire army...
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/03 22:28:03
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff.
Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik.
In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff.
Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik.
In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Yep. Against a solid formation rather than a line, cavalry are somewhat useless... however, if you can get your enemy to form a square in fear of a cavalry assault, their firepower is cut in half and they're a nice, big, juicy target for your cannons. Even in the Napoleonic period, the time of cavalry reliably breaking enemy formations was long since past. It still happened on occasion, give the right terrain or a stroke of luck, but it was not the main aim of a cavalry assault.
Very early in the civil war, some idiot commanders thought their units were still going to use lances from horseback. For obvious reasons this did not continue long. Cavalry after the developement of reliable firearms (I'd say probably after matchlocks were replaced with wheellocks, which were pretty close to being flintlocks) were essentially very fast infantry/scouts.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/03 22:38:09
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Well if you shove a bayonet on a musket you pretty much have a spear. It's why we changed from shot and pike to just shot, because the musket can also hold its own pike.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff.
Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik.
In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Yep. Against a solid formation rather than a line, cavalry are somewhat useless... however, if you can get your enemy to form a square in fear of a cavalry assault, their firepower is cut in half and they're a nice, big, juicy target for your cannons. Even in the Napoleonic period, the time of cavalry reliably breaking enemy formations was long since past. It still happened on occasion, give the right terrain or a stroke of luck, but it was not the main aim of a cavalry assault.
Yea thats true, but this requires a lot of setting up as often cannon would not be there in time to take advantage. I remember reading about how often cavalry would get the enemy into a square but the cannons would lag behind despite being horse cannon. Something about cannon not feeling safe or something from memory and often this cautiousness led to wasted opportunities. On the table top it works fine though because my cannon have no such concerns...
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff.
Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik.
In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Yep. Against a solid formation rather than a line, cavalry are somewhat useless... however, if you can get your enemy to form a square in fear of a cavalry assault, their firepower is cut in half and they're a nice, big, juicy target for your cannons. Even in the Napoleonic period, the time of cavalry reliably breaking enemy formations was long since past. It still happened on occasion, give the right terrain or a stroke of luck, but it was not the main aim of a cavalry assault.
Yea thats true, but this requires a lot of setting up as often cannon would not be there in time to take advantage. I remember reading about how often cavalry would get the enemy into a square but the cannons would lag behind despite being horse cannon. Something about cannon not feeling safe or something from memory and often this cautiousness led to wasted opportunities. On the table top it works fine though because my cannon have no such concerns...
I've not come across that, but I wouldn't be surprised. 19th Century artillery development was all about getting the guns as far back as possible (to keep them safe from cavalry and once rifles came in, infantry just shooting the gun crew). From Napoleon onwards, though, when a Corps with infantry, cavalry and artillery as one operational unit (essentially the birth of modern combined arms approaches) becomes standard. artillery tended to be where it was needed as it moved with the elements it was supporting, rather than bringing up the rear.
Still definitely something that was likely, though, especially prior to that period and afterwards, when pitched battles with time to manoeuvre beforehand became less common.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think cuirassiers ever fought on foot. That would negate the whole point of having such an expensive unit. They are shock cavalry, their job is to crash into stuff.
Only dragoons normally fought on foot, afaik.
In any case, the unit training in this movie is the Carde du Corps, the guards of the Prussian king. It makes sense they are trained in all sorts of warfare, they have to be versatile, unlike a dedicated cavalry unit. They are taught math and other skills, because they are future officers and have to be smart.
Prestor Jon wrote: Just to echo what's already been said, accurately shooting rifles from horseback is very difficult and therefore any cavalry that was issued carbines or rifles were taught to fight dismounted. Fighting dismounted was the most effective way for them to fight with rifles/carbines. Since they were trained to fight dismounted they were taught infantry tactics and in some instances were issued bayonets.
It is the 18th century... Who cares about accuracy? Muskets can't hit gak anyway, It doesn't matter all that much whether you stand still or not. It is all about volume of fire and shock. Cavalry would sometimes fire a volley with pistols or carbines before the charge, to add to the shock of impact.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Yep. Against a solid formation rather than a line, cavalry are somewhat useless... however, if you can get your enemy to form a square in fear of a cavalry assault, their firepower is cut in half and they're a nice, big, juicy target for your cannons. Even in the Napoleonic period, the time of cavalry reliably breaking enemy formations was long since past. It still happened on occasion, give the right terrain or a stroke of luck, but it was not the main aim of a cavalry assault.
Yea thats true, but this requires a lot of setting up as often cannon would not be there in time to take advantage. I remember reading about how often cavalry would get the enemy into a square but the cannons would lag behind despite being horse cannon. Something about cannon not feeling safe or something from memory and often this cautiousness led to wasted opportunities. On the table top it works fine though because my cannon have no such concerns...
I've not come across that, but I wouldn't be surprised. 19th Century artillery development was all about getting the guns as far back as possible (to keep them safe from cavalry and once rifles came in, infantry just shooting the gun crew). From Napoleon onwards, though, when a Corps with infantry, cavalry and artillery as one operational unit (essentially the birth of modern combined arms approaches) becomes standard. artillery tended to be where it was needed as it moved with the elements it was supporting, rather than bringing up the rear.
Still definitely something that was likely, though, especially prior to that period and afterwards, when pitched battles with time to manoeuvre beforehand became less common.
Sorry for the tangent, OP!
It had a lot to do with the fact that guns take up a lot of space and their logistics are complex I think. You read about how messy the back lines become as supplies are rushed around and it makes sense. In Napoleonic wars French had a slow method of gun supply (I think they had to carry individual rounds) and to top it off Firing a cannon is very hard (hence why they had so many people doing it and rotating etc). Really moving guns was a mess as far as i ahve read and it takes a lot of effort, but they are also vulnerable and require protection as they move about.
I will have to go dig up where I got a lot of this info from but gun logistics is pretty above me. It's complex and something that requires some serious reading. I do know this much, moving and simply using guns was a pain in the butt. A necessary pain. They also eat through ammunition.
I know the French Artillery system prevented a lot of action from their guns due to it's complex and slow method of logistics etc. French horse artillery frequently had to wait for their wagons to catch up too.
Here is one bit that talks about the complications of artillery in terms of French.
Paradigm wrote: Damn, wish I'd seen that last week, I've just submitted an essay on Napoleonic military logistics and that would have fitted in quite nicely!
Very cool stuff. I will admit while I am interested in logistics etc I do find the topic exhausting when it comes to numbers and so on. I don't envy the kind of research you likely had to do on the subject.
Carbines are simply rifles/muskets with shorter barrels. This made the weapon easier to reload while mounted (generally you didn't fire while mounted, as horses make bad shooting platforms). Since it was smaller it was also easier to move with, letting Cavalry retrain their advantage of mobility mounted or not. EDIT: To add, carbines became very popular with soldiers and shooters towards the end of the 19th century, to the point that all 'rifles' that followed would have been called carbines in the 18th or 17th centuries and carbines became even shorter. A major role in the popularity of carbines was the development of repeating rifles, like the Spencer and Winchester.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/04 14:43:51
LordofHats wrote: I'm pretty sure that carbine and musketoon are just 2 different words for the same thing.
Overlapping at least. A carbine of the time was a shortened musket or rifle, so it could in theory have a rifled barrel.
Musketoon could refer to the same but it more commonly meant a shorter gun for naval use. Either a shorter version of the service musket firing the same ball, or a short gun with a bigger caliber meant for use like a shotgun. Both were smoothbore.
AegisGrimm wrote: Very early in the civil war, some idiot commanders thought their units were still going to use lances from horseback. For obvious reasons this did not continue long. Cavalry after the developement of reliable firearms (I'd say probably after matchlocks were replaced with wheellocks, which were pretty close to being flintlocks) were essentially very fast infantry/scouts.
It wasn't the improvement in firearms that changed that, it was the improvement in training. Until roughly 1850, muskets just couldn't accurately put enough shots downfield, at enough range, to really break a cavalry charge. However, ranked men with bayonets definitely could. As firearms became more accurate/reliable/cheaper, battle lines became thinner, making cavalry more useful.
What changed in the Civil War wasn't the ability of a unit to take a charge, but the ability of a rifle unit to shoot up cavalry before impact. The rifled muskets of the Civil War could hit targets hundreds of yards away reliably, instead of dozens of yards with smoothbores.
Close in, Civil War Cavalry would have a huge advantage over riflemen. They have sabres instead of rifles, and with revolvers (at least in the North), they have a greater rate of fire. Cavalry where simply better used for other things, and were the most expensive and most vulnerable unit type against infantry, compared to other infantry or artillery.
Worth noting the shock was not the impact but the idea of impact. If the infantry did not disorder there is nearly no chance the cav would follow through with the charge, usually running off to avoid being slaughtered. Horses are not as suicidal as humans.
Totally worth underlining here.
Outside of movies and games (where you just get up and get ready for the next go round) NO ONE FIGHTS TO THE DEATH, the point of most weapons is scare your foes and make them run, you rarely needed to kill them.
Though I wouldn't say the primary focus of weapons was to kill foes. Weapons were for killing, and people naturally don't like being killed. Usually the side to start scoring quick little tactical victories in a line battle would manage to eventually turn a flank at which point the opposing force almost universally began to run. Most casualties in war* are not caused by fighting. Most casualties were incurred in the route, after one army breaks rank and is run down by the opposing side. It never makes it on screen, because it's just not that epic (actually kind of a dick move )
*at least until the modern age, not so sure about more recent wars, as we culturally look down on the idea of shooting people in the back, even opposing soldier. Not sure if that's just fluff.
Nah, the real death toll in older wars was disease, famine and hardship. If more than a third of your casualties was from actual battle (or getting routed) you were incredibly good at finding battles.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
A musketoon is basically a cross between a carbine and blunderbuss. It has a larger bore and open muzzle, allowing it to be used like a shotgun in addition to a normal gun. Which also makes it easier to reload, helpful when you are reloading from horseback or on the deck of moving ship. There was probably a decrease in accuracy of the single shots due to this though.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The deadliness of American Civil War rifle fire has been rather exaggerated.
Although the minie bullet rifle (e.g. Enfield and Springfield) had much better inherent accuracy than a smoothbore musket, there are several reasons why this did not take effect in the war.
1. The ballistic arc of a heavy, low velocity bullet is quite pronounced, and takes careful training to cope with.
2. The troops didn't have markmanship training.
3. Engagement ranges were often remarkably short, due to the nature of the terrain.
The casualties rates from ACW battles are similar to Napoleonic battles.
Kilkrazy wrote: The deadliness of American Civil War rifle fire has been rather exaggerated.
Although the minie bullet rifle (e.g. Enfield and Springfield) had much better inherent accuracy than a smoothbore musket, there are several reasons why this did not take effect in the war.
1. The ballistic arc of a heavy, low velocity bullet is quite pronounced, and takes careful training to cope with.
2. The troops didn't have markmanship training.
3. Engagement ranges were often remarkably short, due to the nature of the terrain.
The casualties rates from ACW battles are similar to Napoleonic battles.
I was under the impression that unlike previous wars it was guns and small arms that claimed many more lives than earlier combats? They often stood at close ranges shooting at each other (negating the rifle advantage) for the reasons described. Falling back only to have another shoot out.
I don't know a lot about the ACW but from what I have read, although for many reasons they could not make the best use of their weapons, they did make a lot of use out of them in odd situations often having huge shoot outs to remove enemy forces.
The casualties rates from ACW battles are similar to Napoleonic battles.
Do you have any sources to hand for that? The (admittedly not extensive) reading I've done on the ACW suggests that the actual numbers of casualties going into 63-64 were exceptionally high compared to previous 19th Century conflicts. Not that I doubt you, I'd just be interested to see the numbers if you have them.