Official Safehold Speculation Thread

Charybdis wrote:

USMA74 wrote: . . .
Note that there is no listing for horse cavalry units. The U.S. Army hasn't had horse cavalry as TOE units (vice table of distribution allowances organizations like the 1st Cavalry Division's horse cavalry platoon) since 1947.

... extract from the 1985 FM 25-5, Training for Mobilization and War. Raiding your bookcase?

So ... whose ghost should be invoked from OWL's memory banks? In terms of horse cavalry, it would be hard to choose from any but the American Civil War as it was the last large, strategic conflict with full use of cavalry, although one might summon 'Black Jack' Pershing for his early years in the American Southwest and Mexico. Still, from the ACW, would one choose Stuart, Hampton, Grierson, Forrest or Sheridan?

Louis R wrote:For mounted infantry, although a cavalryman does have more to unlearn, my guess is that the above would only be increased by the time needed to instruct recruits in the care, feeding and operation of horses as well as themselves. How long that is, you'll need to find a cavalryman to ask

Louis R wrote:Many people will notice that bit about individual training being complete and immediately go 'but...'

First, basic infantry training is at the short end of that 12-52 weeks - the long end is for complex technical skills that simply don't exist in the ICA, although Artillery Technician is coming up fast. [even including Morse Code and cryptographic systems, I could train a signaller in some 15 weeks, possibly less, from scratch, to 1980's-level technology]

Second, people who haven't done it would be surprised just how much of the first weeks is actually spent training them to be 18th-century infantry. That's partly just nostalgia, of course, but there are reasons for it beyond "You're in the Army now!" - the disciplines of close-order drill do make a good foundation for modern extended-order maneuvers. In fact, the beginning drills of individual and section tactics training look so much like parade-square drill that they can be, and are, conducted very handily on a parade square [it looks odd, believe me]. So Garvai's 18th-century infantrymen really only have one thing to unlearn [the tighter the formation the better] as they set to work learning the new skills. This means you can easily chop 3-6 weeks off their individual training. Experienced Corisandian units, or, more correctly, Corisandian units made up of experienced troops, could be ready for deployment in as little as 26 5-days. For raw recruits, add those 30 days back in. For mounted infantry, although a cavalryman does have more to unlearn, my guess is that the above would only be increased by the time needed to instruct recruits in the care, feeding and operation of horses as well as themselves. How long that is, you'll need to find a cavalryman to ask

One final thing: I'd like to underline something that USMA74 said in passing, that I don't think was picked up on. That is that there is only so much that can be accomplished by training, and past that point more training adds nothing to skills or readiness [maintaining readiness is a completely different animal]. You have to stop training at that point and start doing. And, in war, doing involves real people creating real holes in you when you cock up. Or, even more importantly, in your boss and your buddies. That's why peacetime armies so often perform so embarrassingly coming under fire for the first time - they're overtrained and underpracticed.

USMA74 wrote:I think many Safehold fans are over estimating the amount of time it takes to train 18th Century Soldiers for early 20th Century warfare. For their benefit the following is an extract from the 1985 FM 25-5, Training for Mobilization and War.

Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) unit production times are essential for time-phasing the use of currently available facilities. These production times assume that training will be conducted at a minimum of six days per week, ten hours per day.
Training timelines are based on basic and advanced individual training being conducted prior to unit activation. These individual training programs can range from 12 to 52 weeks depending on the military occupational speciality being trained. These timelines also depend on:
• An installation being available to support the training.
• External training support being available.
• Unit TOE equipment available on unit activation.
• Commander, staff, and cadre available.
• External combined arms slice support (such as artillery, engineers, and sustainment support for infantry units) available.
• External evaluators available to confirm unit readiness (Final unit readiness evaluation exercise can be combined with other unit training exercises.)
• No retraining required.
Two weeks is the most frequent time projected for activation and organization with an additional week for preparation for overseas movement (POM) of battalion-size combat and combat support type units. See the following chart for projected unit production times in weeks of training for different types of units. Unit training has been subdivided into training drills and unit proficiency training. The training drills consist of team, section, squad, and platoon training. The unit proficiency training consists of company, battalion and combined arms training, and field training exercises.

Infantry Battalion (Bn) 14 weeks
Tank Bn 16 weeks
Artillery Bn 14 weeks
Division/Brigade Headquarters 10 weeks
Engineer Bn 16 weeks
Signal Units 14 weeks
Medical Units 10 weeks
Military Police Company (Co) 6 weeks
Ordnance Co (Ammunition) 14 weeks
Adjutant General Co (Personnel Services) 5 weeks
Combat Service Support Units 12 weeks

Note that there is no listing for horse cavalry units. The U.S. Army hasn't had horse cavalry as TOE units (vice table of distribution allowances organizations like the 1st Cavalry Division's horse cavalry platoon) since 1947.

JeffEngel wrote:The Red Army made more than a little use of cavalry in the Russian Civil War; I assume the Whites made at least as much. And the Red Army organized and used some genuine horse cavalry units (though I'm not at all sure they didn't fight as mounted infantry) in between the loss of so many armored vehicles in 1941 and the recovery of them in '42, '43.

Mind you, certainly the latter case won't count for your "full use".

But still, on Safehold now, it's hard for me at least to see a good use of cavalry in a theater against modern opposition that doesn't amount to mounted infantry. The best case I can think of - and it's not clear that 'cavalry' remains a good word for it - is frequently mounted scouts and rifle-armed, dismounted-fighting raiders. And that's marginal vs. purely dismounted scout/raiders.

Keith_w wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The Red Army made more than a little use of cavalry in the Russian Civil War; I assume the Whites made at least as much. And the Red Army organized and used some genuine horse cavalry units (though I'm not at all sure they didn't fight as mounted infantry) in between the loss of so many armored vehicles in 1941 and the recovery of them in '42, '43.

Mind you, certainly the latter case won't count for your "full use".

But still, on Safehold now, it's hard for me at least to see a good use of cavalry in a theater against modern opposition that doesn't amount to mounted infantry. The best case I can think of - and it's not clear that 'cavalry' remains a good word for it - is frequently mounted scouts and rifle-armed, dismounted-fighting raiders. And that's marginal vs. purely dismounted scout/raiders.

I would like to remind you that the Polish army also used cavalry against the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions, and we all know how well that turned out.

n7axw wrote:I have wondered about training times myself. Many of the Corisandians had some training with flintlock muskets. Back then Charisians were forming square with close order formations. The tactics of unit dispersal really didn't come until the Mandrayans arrived in Siddarmark with Hanth and BGV.

Along with becoming accustomed to the range of their rifles, learning the tactics appropriate for the Mandrayans would be what's actually new to them. What that means training wise, I am not sure. My impression is that DE's and BGV's people learned pretty much in the field since they first got the Mandrayans when they arrived in Siddar City. Up to that point the were using the same muzzle loading rifles they took to Corisande.

Don

Keith_w wrote:I would like to remind you that the Polish army also used cavalry against the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions, and we all know how well that turned out.

DDHvi wrote:Speculation:

Iris, having learned gunnery to protect, takes it further. Being impressed with the possibilities of unarmed combat, she organizes training in it - for the women.

Too many times, it is the women who are hurt the worst in war. This might not make a major change in this, but couldn't hurt.

Kakai wrote:

Keith_w wrote:I would like to remind you that the Polish army also used cavalry against the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions, and we all know how well that turned out.

Ykhm. Sorry, but you've just hit my personal berserk button.

As you can read here for example, the story of Poles charging tanks is a myth. Some Italian journalist saw corpses of Polish cavalrymen and German tanks and concluded that this was what happened. The fact that one Polish director immortalised the scene of lances vs panzers in his movie did not help matters. As a matter of fact, the Poles charged an infantry battalion and succeeded in their missions's goal, which was to slow down the Germans. So not only were tanks absent during the entire thing, the charge was actually a success.

Sorry for this bit of off-topic, but any time I see this, I just need to clarify this. So sorry if you meant your statement as a joke, too.

DDHvi wrote:Speculation:

Iris, having learned gunnery to protect, takes it further. Being impressed with the possibilities of unarmed combat, she organizes training in it - for the women.

Too many times, it is the women who are hurt the worst in war. This might not make a major change in this, but couldn't hurt.

I like this. Not only because it could help the women in question, but also because it would start preparing Safehold for introduction of women in military, guard and naval forces. Anyone saying that ladies are too weak and fragile to keep up with the "real" soldiers and guards would get a quick and decisive lesson on the error of his ways from Princess Irys' Girls.