The last mayor cavalry charge in history, with hundreds of traditional cavalrymen armed with sabers, took place on August 24th 1942 near Isbuschenskij village at the site of Hill 213.5, in the southern part of the Eastern Front. It was the charge of the Italian Savoia Cavalleria regiment.
Earlier, on the 20th of August, the Soviets 304th Infantry Division had launched an assault against the Italian 2nd Infantry Division. The Soviets had beaten the Italians back with force, and as a last resort the Savoia Cavalleria cavalry regiment was sent in as a relief force.
The Savoia Cavalleria, consisting of approximately 600 cavalrymen organized into squadrons of around 40 cavalrymen each, was led by an Italian Count, Colonel Alessandro Bettoni di Cazzago, a staunch royalist and old-school traditionalist. A master horseman who in the decade prior to the eruption of the Second World War had won almost 700 prizes for show jumping.
The Savoia Cavalleria were armed with traditional cavalry sabers, curved swords with blades optimized for slashing from horseback. In addition to their sabers, they also carried a more modern armament: hand grenades. Also, the regiment had a squadron with machine guns.
Colonel Cazzago and his men were charged with the task of taking the strategic position, Hill 213,5. They set up camp just under a mile from this position on August 23rd, but during the night a Soviet infantry unit of around 2,500 men (the 812th Siberian Rifle Regiment) occupied and dug into the hill, waiting for first light to attack the Italian cavalrymen.
A few hours before dawn, a mounted Italian scouting patrol was spotted by the Soviet troops on the hill. No longer concerned with attacking with the element of surprise behind them, the Soviets began firing on the Italian position.
The Italians returned fire, but it soon became clear to Colonel Cazzago that as he was both outgunned and outnumbered, a sustained exchange of fire would be disastrous. His only hope, he believed, was to flank the Soviets and attack with enough force and speed to drive them from their position. To do this, he planned to use an age-old tactic: a cavalry charge.
Obviously, this was a very risky maneuver β and pitting horsemen armed with sabers against dug-in infantry troops with mortars and machine guns would be suicidal if performed h
... keep reading on reddit β‘
During the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry could be a decisive factor in a battle. Every power had its own armored cavalry β or, "cuirassiers." During the wars of the middle 19th century β Crimean War (1853-1856), Second Italian War of Independence (1859), Austro-Prussian War (1866) and Franco-Prussian War (1870) β cavalry continued to be used. How effective was it? Did more advanced firearms make cavalry much less effective than it had been earlier in the century? And what about WWI? Were there any major cavalry engagements on the Eastern or Western Fronts? Compared to the Napoleonic era, when did armored/melee cavalry become less valuable? Additionally, when did it become completely obsolete and simply a waste of resources?
I have created a pretty monstrous 1h sword.Meant to be used on a horseback, so my ideal weapon length is 115 which I managed to do. Also got the legendary proc and I have another bonus to swing damage on crafted weapons. I think it became a bit of a monster sword.
I'm also trying to craft a 2h polearm (not necessarily a couch lance) and a two handed sword.I usually use different weapons if I'm on foot or on horseback.
Does anyone have a crafted weapon they think turned out awesome? If so, please post the screenshot of the weapon! You don't NEED to post the parts or the sliders, a smith needs to have his secrets!
I'll update this post if I get another awesome weapon!
Edit: Stats in text if someone doesn't like imgur
Legendary Royal Companion Longsword (I know, it's a mouthful)
Civilian, One handed, Bonus against shields
Weight: 1.4
Class: One Handed Sword
Weapon Tier: 6
Swing Speed: 88
Swing Damage: 104 Cut
Thrust Speed: 92
Thrust Damage: 43 Pierce
Length: 115
Handling: 89
Now, I get the logic behind this in theory, and this actually worked out well with Fire Emblem 3 (and to an extent other Marth Games, though the others lacked dismounting).
See, in that game, they treated lances like, well, lances, not JUST catch-all polearms. Now granted, spearmen are the most common infantry in medieval society, and even the soldiers when added to FE3 were implied to be akin to two-handed polearm users (though they had shields, so more like pike-wielding phalanx soldiers), but they treated lances like actual lances, big heavy polearms used on horseback or by strong foot soldiers for maximum impact.
But whats the logic behind an axe user dropping their axe? Or a lance unit dropping their lance, in Thracia 776?
I know the logic may also be "oh when THEY use axes and lances, it follows the former logic, the axes are pole-axes, Hicks being a prime example, and so on", but it just feels arbitrary and silly to me.
Like, it also makes non-sword cavalry useless indoors (well, not TRULY useless, but their stats get capped for little gain in comparison), and it makes non-swordsmen, who are unfairly disadvantaged in favor of "durr hurr swords are better", even MORE disadvantaged when it comes to the mounted variants. At the very least, you DO get foot units that use lances and axes (or at least axes, idk if you get a foot-lance unit?), it just seems a bit silly that the limit was placed at all to me.
Plus, it just makes sword cavalry seem just a bit superior since I think they keep their sword rank.
I want to say though, I appreciate the idea of dismounting as a mechanic, and I'd like it to come back in future FE games. It adds realism to the game and forces players to consider "okay, should I bring some under-leveled cavalry in here to add numbers to my manpower and level them up, but at the cost of the dismounting debuffs? Or should I preserve them for field battles only?"
I know Three Houses had it but...uhh...it was kind of pointless? I mean if you needed to avoid a horse killer or something, sure, but otherwise it had no fundamental purpose.
I know Warhammer Dwarves are based heavily on Tolkien Dwarves, but in the film adaptation of the Hobbit, dwarves can be seen using Goat as Cavalry and Pike Walls:
Example
Dwarves tend to use a lot of Artillery but Artillery without any pikes or cavalry is basically an invitation to get annihilated by the enemy's cavalry. On top that, their Artillery consisting of Cannons and Volley-guns are about the same tech level as the Human Empire's. There are also some Dwarves that don't trust Blackpower and field inferior weapons like Catapults and Ballistae.
Polearms seem to be ideal weapon for Dwarves given their short reach. Skallagrim goes over the technicalities of that
Here
Some argue that the polearms and similar long weapons would be bad for tunnel fighting because they would get flanked; but in that scenario they could simply drop the polearms and use the Axe they should be carrying on their scabbard similar to the Roman phalanx.
Also in that aspect, the underground restrictiveness for example doesn't seem to apply to Skaven or Night Goblins. They are primarily subterranean factions yet use polearms and cavalry.
One key advantage the Dwarves have over their adversaries is the Gyrocopter, which brings aerial combat into question. Unfortunately, though revolutionary, the low range of its attack makes it obsolete as can be shot down by muskets and arrows.
Why are the Dwarves like this? How can the faction fielded as the tech-savvy and smart, fall short (hehe) of the races they look down upon?
I am not interested in its historical accuracy as much as its practical effectiveness.
Base on the images I got from Google, these are very long swords.
Despite that, I have less confidence in that sword than a pike or even a long and sturdy pole against mounted soldiers.
A charging horse is an object moving at high speed from a human perspective. Unlike a stabbing weapon where you just need to aim the lance and secure the handle against the earth, a zanbato requires you to make a swing. Miss it by a hair and the horse will trample you.
That's not to mention a charging horse is a massive force, and now it got the weight of a human + all the extra accessories on top. Being slammed by force that strong is guaranteed to be either dead or disabled. I don't even think the Zanbato can even withstand the impact if the user somehow manages to launch a successful hit on the horse.
I have always seen this in media and as someone who is fascinated by the early modern era it has always confused me.
~Inevitable~ Inheritable
We need more weapons, pls IS
Or at least demote them
Hi.
I'm not interested in trying to restore them, affect the patina, or do anything to alter or damage them in any way.
They are well preserved, but I would like to give them a light cleaning of any forming rust, and give them a coat of oil, or maybe wax.
I don't want to do anything drastic to them, or anything that would require the service of a professional, just a light cleaning and a coat of something protective.
Anybody have recommendations for what to use and how best to go about this? I considered just giving them a polish with CLP, but figured the solvents in CLP would be a bad call.
I've seen people recommend museum wax, but i know nothing about this, and would like to give them a light cleaning just to combat any forming rust.
I'm open to any insight or advice you might have.
Thanks!
Age of Empires 3 represents polearm-armed garrochista cavalry as being more effective in combat against infantry, where sword-armed Hussar cavalry are more broadly useful. Civilization 5 represents this tradeoff in the opposite way, however. Lancers are a specialized anti-cavalry unit where regular knights are generalists. Which depiction of pre-industrial warfare is more accurate? How did renaissance era tacticians decide how to equip their cavalry? Or did the strategic dimensions of this choice matter little and come down to whatever was popular in the local culture?
How can i fix it?
