Panzers killed by Cavalry ???
- Thread starter reemul99
- Start date
SomethingWitty
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 533
Cossacks served on horseback to some degree during the invasion of Russia.
And we all know the Steppes became the graveyard of german panzers.
You're taking units to literally.
Consider these cavalry to be armed with rpgs and using horses to coordinate guerilla tactics.
And we all know the Steppes became the graveyard of german panzers.
You're taking units to literally.
Consider these cavalry to be armed with rpgs and using horses to coordinate guerilla tactics.
Billy Rubin said:
another good point...
the Panzer referred to by Americans and other generally stupid-folk is a Panzer Mk IV
A Tiger is of course a Tiger... but when Panzer is mentioned it is related to the Mk IV.
Panzer in generally short for Panzerkamphwagon...
The Poles Defending German Tank Divisions:
http://felsztyn.tripod.com/germaninvasion/
A general overview of the polish Cavalry and their roles.
http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/flags/pl^lpenn.html
Here's how Germans used cavalry:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/
You sir have been owned.
Let me ask you a question.. Do you actually look for facts before you call someone out? Because if you run a war the same way you run your life, your level of success will ultimately lead to poor results.
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html
"There are many "myths" that surround the September Campaign; the fictional Polish cavalry charges against German tanks (actually reported by the Italian press and used as propaganda by the Germans), the alleged destruction of the Polish Air Force on the ground, or claims that Polish armour failed to achieve any success against the invaders. In reality, and despite the fact that Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour) so that, at the time of invasion, only about one-third of her total potential manpower was mobilised, Polish forces ensured that the September campaign was no "walk-over". The Wehrmacht had so under-rated Polish anti-tank capabilities (the Polish-designed anti-tank gun was one of the best in the world at that time) that they had gone into action with white "balkankreuz", or crosses, prominently displayed in eight locations; these crosses made excellent aiming points for Polish gun-sights and forced the Germans to radically rethink their national insignia, initially overpainting them in yellow and then, for their later campaigns, adopting the modified "balkankreuz" similar to that used by the Luftwaffe. The recently-designed 7TP "czolg lekki", or light tank, the first in the world to be designed with a diesel engine, proved to be superior to German tanks of the same class (the PzKpfw I and II) inflicting serious damage to the German forces, limited only by the fact that they were not used in concentrated groups. They were absorbed by the Germans into their own Panzer divisions at the end of the campaign."
Touche?
Furthermore Source 1 is pretty badly done, I found three major errors in the dates it proposed for certain events. (tripod is bad mmkay?)
Secondly source 2 is based off german field reports in WW2, the Germans were well known to have used the Calvalry charge myth as propaganda towards proving polish inferiority.
Source 3 includes not a single account of any polish calvalry charge, it is a pennant page... WTH were you thinking?
So... once again i implore you to READ YOUR HISTORY.
p.s. double owned.
"There are many "myths" that surround the September Campaign; the fictional Polish cavalry charges against German tanks (actually reported by the Italian press and used as propaganda by the Germans), the alleged destruction of the Polish Air Force on the ground, or claims that Polish armour failed to achieve any success against the invaders. In reality, and despite the fact that Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour) so that, at the time of invasion, only about one-third of her total potential manpower was mobilised, Polish forces ensured that the September campaign was no "walk-over". The Wehrmacht had so under-rated Polish anti-tank capabilities (the Polish-designed anti-tank gun was one of the best in the world at that time) that they had gone into action with white "balkankreuz", or crosses, prominently displayed in eight locations; these crosses made excellent aiming points for Polish gun-sights and forced the Germans to radically rethink their national insignia, initially overpainting them in yellow and then, for their later campaigns, adopting the modified "balkankreuz" similar to that used by the Luftwaffe. The recently-designed 7TP "czolg lekki", or light tank, the first in the world to be designed with a diesel engine, proved to be superior to German tanks of the same class (the PzKpfw I and II) inflicting serious damage to the German forces, limited only by the fact that they were not used in concentrated groups. They were absorbed by the Germans into their own Panzer divisions at the end of the campaign."
Touche?
Furthermore Source 1 is pretty badly done, I found three major errors in the dates it proposed for certain events. (tripod is bad mmkay?)
Secondly source 2 is based off german field reports in WW2, the Germans were well known to have used the Calvalry charge myth as propaganda towards proving polish inferiority.
Source 3 includes not a single account of any polish calvalry charge, it is a pennant page... WTH were you thinking?
So... once again i implore you to READ YOUR HISTORY.
p.s. double owned.
SomethingWitty
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 533
MDraper said:
Uh, I took a look at your links but it doesn't indicate anything you suggest it does.
Did the Poles have cavalry? Yes. Did they use them to engage panzers in open combat? I sure didn't see it in your links.
Look here:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/102562/Main/101480
Specifically:
Battle of Mokra - September 1st 1939 - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic. During the charge lances were used.
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/102562/Main/101480
Specifically:
Battle of Mokra - September 1st 1939 - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic. During the charge lances were used.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
http://www.polishnews.com/fulltext/history/2001/history4.shtml
Here's another. An interview with a Polish cavalry commander talking about attacking German tanks and ambushes against them. He talks about how his men used guerilla tactics against the tanks most effectively.
Dale
Here's another. An interview with a Polish cavalry commander talking about attacking German tanks and ambushes against them. He talks about how his men used guerilla tactics against the tanks most effectively.
Dale
My axemen should be able to kill tanks -- after all, they were over 4000 years old. I'm figuring they are probably like the Army of the Dead from Lord of the Rings! Not sure if the dead can beat tanks ......
The problem with the cavalry discussion above comes from far different assumptions. A cavalry unit with nothing but horses and guns surely would have trouble with tanks, indeed, no chance unless the tank suffered a mechanical breakdown. But what if the cavalry had anti-tank guns? Or even Molotov cocktails? What is they dug anti-tank traps, and laid mines? Hand-held anti-tank guns weren't too expensive in WWII. (Eisenhower once listed the bazooka as one of the three most important US weapons in WWII). Note that modern day battalions of armor or infantry do have assets like artillery and stuff attached (of course, this differs country by country). Infantry battalions do, indeed, have anti-tank capability. So, does my axeman?
I think of the newly built units as highly trained and outfitted with equipment. Upgraded units are also 'elites', not in experience points, but in terms of weaponry and outfitting. View the older technology units as militia type units that have less upgrades but keep around some equipment to have a fighting chance.
We are playing a a game. I can't fathom a cavalry group taking down a tank unless it has the equipment I list -- but I can understand it better than a 4000 year old axemen, or the fact it can take my army assembled on the fleet 30 years to get to the enemy continent. Note that after that 30 year period, they land, they can raise bleep! Amazing -- I would think they would be a bit seasick!
Moreover, this army doesn't need resupply (which is good, since it takes another 30 years for the fleet to move each way). They can be surrounded in enemy territory but they suffer no ill effects.
Anyway, I'm an historian, but I'm a gamer. The designers tried to match the importance of tech development with other developments. They didn't want whoever get the best tech first always wins.
So, instead of thinking about the specific pieces, think of the money spent each turn by the power on its military, which includes unit costs, upgrades, and maintenance, including free maintenance. As long as the military strength is in line with expenditures, the game has the right strategic feel, since CIV IV at its basest level is use of a variety of resources for optimal effect.
My army in enemy territory isn't subject to supply and reequipment. The game, does, however, charge an extra COST for it. I'm assuming that is the cost of supplies being run to the army, even though I can't 'see' it.
The question people have to ask themselves on these threads is whether the unit really represents the face silhouette. If I have a 4000 year-old axeman I'm assuming that people were replaced, as was (at least to some degree) equipment, tactics, etc. After all, maintenace is paid every turn on them (even if it is 0, it is being paid by your cities and population) and any unit in the field will get their axes replaced.
Now I know the counter-argument --then they shouldn't get their plus vs. blah blah. Yes, that is true. Again, they game is a game and it is less direct.
Note the abstraction works the same for other buildings. What about training? How realistic is the barracks that I built in 1500 BC training modern units? Obviously, that's not realistic at all. Of course, the barracks has been upgraded through time to meet current needs.
People keep concentrating on tanks being killed by (fill it in). But the fact units live forever with the same characteristics, naval distances, building effects, etc is every bit as much of an abstraction. There are a lot of abstractions in CIV, combat is one of them.
This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the old arguments between the wargamers (me) and the miniatures players. The miniatures guys always had everything 'direct'. A unit represents exactly what you see, it has a weapon, it charges, fires, shoots, etc. They concentrated on different things, they worry about the look and uniform, they spend time painting their units to make them loook perfect (trust me -- this isn't easy!) A typical wargamer has a piece that says 5-5, and has a tank symbol. But that unit represents logistics, upgrades, non-tank units, etc. A lot of miniatures' players find wargames unrealistic and abstract. That is their right, as is of anyone here.
My verbose point is a simple one. To me, its clear that CIV IV is in 'wargame' mode, not 'miniatures' mode. So, that cavalry unit that killed your tank also happens to have modern anti-tank equipment, even though you don't see it on the unit silhouette. It does need supply and it costs more in enemy territory. If you don't like it that way, that is your right -- there is no right or wrong on what you like. In terms of design, though, its clear at least to me that the game uses some level of distraction.
So, the question isn't, 'Can a cavalry man destroy a tank'. I think most of us would say no. The real question is, 'My unit represented by cavalry with a strength of blah fights a tank, and has a shot at winning. So that unit has equipment to deal with the problem'. Does the game realistically present the strategic choices correctly?
Best wishes,
Breunor
The problem with the cavalry discussion above comes from far different assumptions. A cavalry unit with nothing but horses and guns surely would have trouble with tanks, indeed, no chance unless the tank suffered a mechanical breakdown. But what if the cavalry had anti-tank guns? Or even Molotov cocktails? What is they dug anti-tank traps, and laid mines? Hand-held anti-tank guns weren't too expensive in WWII. (Eisenhower once listed the bazooka as one of the three most important US weapons in WWII). Note that modern day battalions of armor or infantry do have assets like artillery and stuff attached (of course, this differs country by country). Infantry battalions do, indeed, have anti-tank capability. So, does my axeman?
I think of the newly built units as highly trained and outfitted with equipment. Upgraded units are also 'elites', not in experience points, but in terms of weaponry and outfitting. View the older technology units as militia type units that have less upgrades but keep around some equipment to have a fighting chance.
We are playing a a game. I can't fathom a cavalry group taking down a tank unless it has the equipment I list -- but I can understand it better than a 4000 year old axemen, or the fact it can take my army assembled on the fleet 30 years to get to the enemy continent. Note that after that 30 year period, they land, they can raise bleep! Amazing -- I would think they would be a bit seasick!
Moreover, this army doesn't need resupply (which is good, since it takes another 30 years for the fleet to move each way). They can be surrounded in enemy territory but they suffer no ill effects.
Anyway, I'm an historian, but I'm a gamer. The designers tried to match the importance of tech development with other developments. They didn't want whoever get the best tech first always wins.
So, instead of thinking about the specific pieces, think of the money spent each turn by the power on its military, which includes unit costs, upgrades, and maintenance, including free maintenance. As long as the military strength is in line with expenditures, the game has the right strategic feel, since CIV IV at its basest level is use of a variety of resources for optimal effect.
My army in enemy territory isn't subject to supply and reequipment. The game, does, however, charge an extra COST for it. I'm assuming that is the cost of supplies being run to the army, even though I can't 'see' it.
The question people have to ask themselves on these threads is whether the unit really represents the face silhouette. If I have a 4000 year-old axeman I'm assuming that people were replaced, as was (at least to some degree) equipment, tactics, etc. After all, maintenace is paid every turn on them (even if it is 0, it is being paid by your cities and population) and any unit in the field will get their axes replaced.
Now I know the counter-argument --then they shouldn't get their plus vs. blah blah. Yes, that is true. Again, they game is a game and it is less direct.
Note the abstraction works the same for other buildings. What about training? How realistic is the barracks that I built in 1500 BC training modern units? Obviously, that's not realistic at all. Of course, the barracks has been upgraded through time to meet current needs.
People keep concentrating on tanks being killed by (fill it in). But the fact units live forever with the same characteristics, naval distances, building effects, etc is every bit as much of an abstraction. There are a lot of abstractions in CIV, combat is one of them.
This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the old arguments between the wargamers (me) and the miniatures players. The miniatures guys always had everything 'direct'. A unit represents exactly what you see, it has a weapon, it charges, fires, shoots, etc. They concentrated on different things, they worry about the look and uniform, they spend time painting their units to make them loook perfect (trust me -- this isn't easy!) A typical wargamer has a piece that says 5-5, and has a tank symbol. But that unit represents logistics, upgrades, non-tank units, etc. A lot of miniatures' players find wargames unrealistic and abstract. That is their right, as is of anyone here.
My verbose point is a simple one. To me, its clear that CIV IV is in 'wargame' mode, not 'miniatures' mode. So, that cavalry unit that killed your tank also happens to have modern anti-tank equipment, even though you don't see it on the unit silhouette. It does need supply and it costs more in enemy territory. If you don't like it that way, that is your right -- there is no right or wrong on what you like. In terms of design, though, its clear at least to me that the game uses some level of distraction.
So, the question isn't, 'Can a cavalry man destroy a tank'. I think most of us would say no. The real question is, 'My unit represented by cavalry with a strength of blah fights a tank, and has a shot at winning. So that unit has equipment to deal with the problem'. Does the game realistically present the strategic choices correctly?
Best wishes,
Breunor
Dale said:
also once again nothing more than a tabloid quality source...
if you guys can somehow get to me a first world source of this myth occuring I will stand corrected, until then the stuff you are showing me might as well be the national enquirer.
SomethingWitty
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 533
Covert22 said:
And very vague. The first battle describes polish cavalry vs. german infantry, with polish retreat when german armor shows up. It actually cites this as a source of the propaganda about poles horses charging german tanks.
As for the "battle of mokra" all it says is cavalry with lances engaged with "elements" of a german panzer division. For all we know, that could have been a pole riding down a german company clerk.
All sources are disputable. You can choose to believe it or not. You can dispute any source you wish. Granted my links weren't very descriptive as they were on the first page of a google search, I was lazy, I will find more sources for your educational needs.
Ok, again you will dispute this source (after all it IS only the ENCYCLOPEDIA)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/cavalry.asp
LAST PARAGRAPH
They STOPPED using the cavalry but the Germans, when they FIRST INVADED POLAND engaged Cavalry Units IN OPEN COMBAT.
Now, Apologize.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/cavalry.asp
LAST PARAGRAPH
They STOPPED using the cavalry but the Germans, when they FIRST INVADED POLAND engaged Cavalry Units IN OPEN COMBAT.
Now, Apologize.
Covert22 said:
Check the 20 or so links included in the forum then....
Overall it is painting a larger picture: Polish calvary units did engage with german tank units, but it wasn't their first choice. Also, calvary didn't usually fight mounted. The horses were used much more for overall mobility, and the fighting was done on foot.
Here is one of the links in the above mentioned forum:
http://www.panzerworld.net/fallweiss.html
Scroll down to read about the charges.
And here is a quote:
"Additionally, the Poles had about 1,200 37mm anti-tank guns (27 per infantry division and 14 per cavalry division) as well as anti-tank rifles (92 per division)."
Don't know about you, but I would think that 14 37mm anti-tank guns and 92 anti-tank rifles could, just maybe, kill one of your tanks.
The overall point here is not that the calvalry SHOULD win, but that it is POSSIBLE for them to win.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
Covert22 said:
I think that you owe an apology to the forum members for engaging in such offensive and uncalled for insults. I now consider you an ill-mannered troll and would not credit you with credibility if you simply posted the month, day and year. So blather on with your pompous opinions, no one gives a hoot.
Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Similar threads
