NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Ularn]

Thats not creepy at all.... >_>

Is it gay? No one online knows since no one online definitively knows my sex.

Except you are a dude.

Everyone on the Internet's a dude until they post pics

[Allanea]

Anglo i was screwing with a new guy and thought of you

Thats not creepy at all.... >_>

Thinking erotically of another person is creepy? Has the bar for creepy been set that low?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Thats not creepy at all.... >_>

Thinking erotically of another person is creepy? Has the bar for creepy been set that low?

While screwing someone else? If you are going to screw someone you can at least have the dignity to think of them while you do it.

Is it gay? No one online knows since no one online definitively knows my sex.

Except you are a dude.

Everyone on the Internet's a dude until they post pics

Everyone assumed Sapharisa (spelling?) was a girl until she stated otherwise. I am still assuming Sahprisa is a girl until she posts some proof to the contrary.

[The Akasha Colony]

this isn't actually a problem for the military. its just unfair on the individual. if the recruiting standards and process deliver enough officer the army is fine. it doesn't matter if theres a good candidate soldiering away in the ranks. if it doesn't they'll simply throw away the requirement for a degree (though in the british army their is no such requirement.)

regarding the overlap between WO2 and 2nd LT. its quite deliberate. one may well have to do the others job on the battlefield.

It's in the military's interests to have the best people possible in the best positions possible. If a soldier would be more useful as a Lieutenant, but the army has him as a Private, then the army ends up poorer for it even if they already have sufficient lieutenants.

And although it's possible to be an officer in the British Army without a university degree or equivalent, I suspect it's not at all common for someone to go into officer training straight out of school.

The problem is, how do you figure this out? The current system is self-sorting based on desire and previous aptitude, which may not be perfectly fair, but is a bit more practical than making everyone a lieutenant and seeing how it goes. Plus, the enlisted ranks need leaders as well; one of the more important factors in combat effectiveness is how experienced and competent a unit's NCOs are, since these are the guys leading the men in combat and actually relaying the command orders to the men on the ground.

I've been thinking, why are electronics in tanks so expensive?

I can understand the need for communications, night vision, gun stabilization, gun temperature calculations and GPS, but those things don't seem very expensive to me. At least not in the range of millions.

What else do modern tanks use that make them so hilariously expensive?

EDIT: I guess I should have posted this in the tank thread, oh well.

A good deal of it is simply the requirement to develop it to military-grade specifications for durability, security, and reliability. It's easy to design a system that will carry out those functions, but when you factor in the cost of ruggedization, plus security features, as well as meeting military reliability standards, cost vastly increase. Just take a look at ruggedized laptops available for sale now, which will retail for much more than a normal laptop with the same specs. Plus, some like the gun stabilization system are basically custom-made and aren't produced in very large numbers, pushing up per-unit cost.

[Yes Im Biop]

Thinking erotically of another person is creepy? Has the bar for creepy been set that low?

While screwing someone else? If you are going to screw someone you can at least have the dignity to think of them while you do it.

Except you are a dude.

Everyone on the Internet's a dude until they post pics

Everyone assumed Sapharisa (spelling?) was a girl until she stated otherwise. I am still assuming Sahprisa is a girl until she posts some proof to the contrary.

What have i started

[The UK in Exile]

It's in the military's interests to have the best people possible in the best positions possible. If a soldier would be more useful as a Lieutenant, but the army has him as a Private, then the army ends up poorer for it even if they already have sufficient lieutenants.

And although it's possible to be an officer in the British Army without a university degree or equivalent, I suspect it's not at all common for someone to go into officer training straight out of school.

The problem is, how do you figure this out? The current system is self-sorting based on desire and previous aptitude, which may not be perfectly fair, but is a bit more practical than making everyone a lieutenant and seeing how it goes. Plus, the enlisted ranks need leaders as well; one of the more important factors in combat effectiveness is how experienced and competent a unit's NCOs are, since these are the guys leading the men in combat and actually relaying the command orders to the men on the ground.

exactly it is in the armies best interests to have the amount of lieutenants it needs and for those 2nd Lts to be competent.

your argueing for a theoretical perfect solution rather than how to design and effective process.

an army needs an effective process. if that process occasionally puts the wrong man in the wrong place thats his problem.

[Ularn]

The problem is, how do you figure this out? The current system is self-sorting based on desire and previous aptitude, which may not be perfectly fair, but is a bit more practical than making everyone a lieutenant and seeing how it goes. Plus, the enlisted ranks need leaders as well; one of the more important factors in combat effectiveness is how experienced and competent a unit's NCOs are, since these are the guys leading the men in combat and actually relaying the command orders to the men on the ground.

exactly it is in the armies best interests to have the amount of lieutenants it needs and for those 2nd Lts to be competent.

your argueing for a theoretical perfect solution rather than how to design and effective process.

an army needs an effective process. if that process occasionally puts the wrong man in the wrong place thats his problem.

Really, I'm just trying to brainstorm for alternative ideas here; nothing wrong with trying to think of a system that's perfect and effective.

[Kouralia]

exactly it is in the armies best interests to have the amount of lieutenants it needs and for those 2nd Lts to be competent.

your argueing for a theoretical perfect solution rather than how to design and effective process.

an army needs an effective process. if that process occasionally puts the wrong man in the wrong place thats his problem.

Really, I'm just trying to brainstorm for alternative ideas here; nothing wrong with trying to think of a system that's perfect and effective.

I'd analyse their application for any leadership abilities. Then I'd probably take into account the views of experienced interviewers who would speak to all the recruits (during peace time at least). Next there'd be aptitude tests and probably simulations of scenarios likely to give me an insight into how effective they will be. At that point we'd either transfer them into the Royal Officer's Academy or keep them in whichever school they were in. Obviously if an OR showed key leadership skills during war we would think of either making them a 'Leading X', an 'X First-Class' or a 'Senior X'. These have different benefits depending on whichever is issued to the soldier, and they can offer a good alternative to field commissions.

[Bajireyn]

Thats not creepy at all.... >_>

Thinking erotically of another person is creepy? Has the bar for creepy been set that low?

No its - nevermind.

[Galla-]

Thinking erotically of another person is creepy? Has the bar for creepy been set that low?

No its - nevermind.

It's a compliment?

?

[Bajireyn]

No its - nevermind.

It's a compliment?

?

No its not a compliment.

It was a dumb post.

[Arkinesia]

I'm just dropping in to show everyone that forward-swept wings suck when used for anything but a slow-flying aircraft. The positives and negatives in the article are adequate for that purpose.

I'm sick of seeing RPers using FSW designs when the fact is that they are generally conceptual when it comes to military use. They are generally considered useless in military use. The designers at Grumman who worked on the X-29 admitted that their control system would have become ineffective for a pilot in the event of a wing being hit with shrapnel or a bullet as the system would no longer be able to determine the twist on the wing. This would result in a breakdown of controls, meaning the pilot would have to eject just because he took a bullet to the wing.

This page is in a textbook used by Stanford aeronautical engineering students.

tl;dr forward-swept wings suck with air superiority fighters and if you use a fighter with such a design, you automatically fail the realism test.

[Ularn]

I'm just dropping in to show everyone that forward-swept wings suck when used for anything but a slow-flying aircraft. The positives and negatives in the article are adequate for that purpose.

I'm sick of seeing RPers using FSW designs when the fact is that they are generally conceptual when it comes to military use. They are generally considered useless in military use. The designers at Grumman who worked on the X-29 admitted that their control system would have become ineffective for a pilot in the event of a wing being hit with shrapnel or a bullet as the system would no longer be able to determine the twist on the wing. This would result in a breakdown of controls, meaning the pilot would have to eject just because he took a bullet to the wing.

This page is in a textbook used by Stanford aeronautical engineering students.

tl;dr forward-swept wings suck with air superiority fighters and if you use a fighter with such a design, you automatically fail the realism test.

Take it to NSD, mate.

[Arkinesia]

Everyone assumed Sapharisa (spelling?) was a girl until she stated otherwise. I am still assuming Sahprisa is a girl until she posts some proof to the contrary.

I have seen photos of Saph with his pony.

He is definitely a he.

I'm just dropping in to show everyone that forward-swept wings suck when used for anything but a slow-flying aircraft. The positives and negatives in the article are adequate for that purpose.

I'm sick of seeing RPers using FSW designs when the fact is that they are generally conceptual when it comes to military use. They are generally considered useless in military use. The designers at Grumman who worked on the X-29 admitted that their control system would have become ineffective for a pilot in the event of a wing being hit with shrapnel or a bullet as the system would no longer be able to determine the twist on the wing. This would result in a breakdown of controls, meaning the pilot would have to eject just because he took a bullet to the wing.

This page is in a textbook used by Stanford aeronautical engineering students.

tl;dr forward-swept wings suck with air superiority fighters and if you use a fighter with such a design, you automatically fail the realism test.

Take it to NSD, mate.

I'm sorry, did the thread title change from “NS Military Realism Consultation Thread”? No? Then don't complain.

[San-Silvacian]

I'm just dropping in to show everyone that forward-swept wings suck when used for anything but a slow-flying aircraft. The positives and negatives in the article are adequate for that purpose.

I'm sick of seeing RPers using FSW designs when the fact is that they are generally conceptual when it comes to military use. They are generally considered useless in military use. The designers at Grumman who worked on the X-29 admitted that their control system would have become ineffective for a pilot in the event of a wing being hit with shrapnel or a bullet as the system would no longer be able to determine the twist on the wing. This would result in a breakdown of controls, meaning the pilot would have to eject just because he took a bullet to the wing.

This page is in a textbook used by Stanford aeronautical engineering students.

tl;dr forward-swept wings suck with air superiority fighters and if you use a fighter with such a design, you automatically fail the realism test.

Cool story bro, needs more ninjas.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I'm just dropping in to show everyone that forward-swept wings suck when used for anything but a slow-flying aircraft. The positives and negatives in the article are adequate for that purpose.

I'm sick of seeing RPers using FSW designs when the fact is that they are generally conceptual when it comes to military use. They are generally considered useless in military use. The designers at Grumman who worked on the X-29 admitted that their control system would have become ineffective for a pilot in the event of a wing being hit with shrapnel or a bullet as the system would no longer be able to determine the twist on the wing. This would result in a breakdown of controls, meaning the pilot would have to eject just because he took a bullet to the wing.

This page is in a textbook used by Stanford aeronautical engineering students.

tl;dr forward-swept wings suck with air superiority fighters and if you use a fighter with such a design, you automatically fail the realism test.

Cool story bro, needs more ninjas.

Because obviously explaining why a commonly misused concept is bad is out of place in a thread called the "NS Military Realism Consultation Thread", obviously.

[Ularn]

Cool story bro, needs more ninjas.

Because obviously explaining why a commonly misused concept is bad is out of place in a thread called the "NS Military Realism Consultation Thread", obviously.

It's not that; it's just that the comment came out of nowhere and wasn't at all related to anything we were discussing and, if the topic ever does come up, it will be long after the post was forgotten. Taking all that into account, posting it seems incredibly pointless.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Because obviously explaining why a commonly misused concept is bad is out of place in a thread called the "NS Military Realism Consultation Thread", obviously.

It's not that; it's just that the comment came out of nowhere and wasn't at all related to anything we were discussing and, if the topic ever does come up, it will be long after the post was forgotten. Taking all that into account, posting it seems incredibly pointless.

There was someone posting a swept wing delta wing plane and some other strange wing shape not too long back, he is simply a bit late to the party so to speak.

[Spirit of Hope]

-snip-

Right here you go

Historians such as John Keegan have shown that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies

Wikipedia OR

foot-soldiers proved their invulnerability to cavalry charges as long as they held their formation

Wikipedia OR

Attacking an unbroken infantry force head-on usually resulted in failure

wikipedia

Battles:
Battle of Hastings, Infantry formation repelled multiple cavalry charges, Normans only one when the infantry formation broke to peruse retreating cavalry.

many of the horses shied away despite their careful breeding and training

again wikipedia

Battle of Falkirk: English charge repulsed by pike formation. Wikipedia

Battle of the Golden Spurs: French cavalry attack Flemish militia and are repulsed.

showed that knights could be defeated by disciplined and well-equipped infantry

Wikipedia

Battle of Crecy & Battle of Agincourt: French Cavalry defeated by English infantry and longbows.

many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank

Wikipedia and Wikipedia

These are all pre gunpowder battles (ok some very bad cannons were present) where Infantry repulsed cavalry charges using formations, spears and pikes.

Battle of Waterloo: French Assault British Infantry.

Vulnerable to artillery or infantry, squares that stood their ground were deadly to cavalry, because they could not be outflanked and because horses would not charge into a hedge of bayonets

The French cavalry attacks were repeatedly repelled by the steadfast infantry squares

Wikipedia

Thin Red Line (Battle of Balaclava): British Infantry volley fire at charging Russian cavalry. Volleys at 600 yards, 350 yards, 150 yards. Wikipedia

Battle of Worth: French Cavalry charge prussian forces, gain limited success before being slaughtered. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wörth#French_cavalry_charges[/url] Don't know why this link isn't working, oh well

[San-Silvacian]

Cool story bro, needs more ninjas.

Because obviously explaining why a commonly misused concept is bad is out of place in a thread called the "NS Military Realism Consultation Thread", obviously.

Obviously.

Duh.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

-snip-

Right here you go

Historians such as John Keegan have shown that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies

Wikipedia OR

foot-soldiers proved their invulnerability to cavalry charges as long as they held their formation

Wikipedia OR

Attacking an unbroken infantry force head-on usually resulted in failure

wikipedia

Battles:
Battle of Hastings, Infantry formation repelled multiple cavalry charges, Normans only one when the infantry formation broke to peruse retreating cavalry.

many of the horses shied away despite their careful breeding and training

again wikipedia

Battle of Falkirk: English charge repulsed by pike formation. Wikipedia

Battle of the Golden Spurs: French cavalry attack Flemish militia and are repulsed.

showed that knights could be defeated by disciplined and well-equipped infantry

Wikipedia

Battle of Crecy & Battle of Agincourt: French Cavalry defeated by English infantry and longbows.

many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank

Wikipedia and Wikipedia

These are all pre gunpowder battles (ok some very bad cannons were present) where Infantry repulsed cavalry charges using formations, spears and pikes.

Battle of Waterloo: French Assault British Infantry.

Vulnerable to artillery or infantry, squares that stood their ground were deadly to cavalry, because they could not be outflanked and because horses would not charge into a hedge of bayonets

The French cavalry attacks were repeatedly repelled by the steadfast infantry squares

Wikipedia

Thin Red Line (Battle of Balaclava): British Infantry volley fire at charging Russian cavalry. Volleys at 600 yards, 350 yards, 150 yards. Wikipedia

Battle of Worth: French Cavalry charge prussian forces, gain limited success before being slaughtered. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wörth#French_cavalry_charges[/url] Don't know why this link isn't working, oh well

Middle ages =/= 1800s. There is a huge difference between an infantryman with a pike, or an infantryman with a shield and spear standing at the top of a hill and an unarmoured foot soldier with a rifle. Also your individual examples are terrible for several reasons.
1. The cavalry were charging infantry at the top of a hill with shields and spears, if they didn't fail it would have been amazing. In all honesty William the bastard did some shitty planning at Hastings.
2. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
3. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
4. This is the closest thing to a good example in the pre-gunpowder age, but it relies on several things. The French cavalry were too hasty, and the overall situation was terrible for the French. If the crossbowmen didn't leave their pavises behind the English would have suffered much higher losses if not been defeated outright..
5. Yes, the infantry survived, because they formed squares. The whole point of that formation is to protect against cavalry, but guess what, it is terrible to do outside of that exact situation and takes time to form up, as well as leaving you open to artillery and musket/rifle fire. The reason it failed was because Ney charged in unsupported, if he had infantry support the British could have faced the cavalry as a line and potentially been slaughtered or formed a square and reduced their firepower to 25% of what it normally is against the enemy infantry.
6. As someone already pointed out the Russians stopped because they assumed that it was a diversion because the British commander was a racist asshole (forming his men into a 2 deep line against a direct cavalry charge) who should have had his unit wiped out.
7. Don't know too much about this battle, but from what I read it seems like the casualties were caused by the combined forced of artillery and infantry.

Honestly most of your examples are terrible because they rely on commanders that are inept or simply have poor information.

Here are a few successes you might like to read about

Battle of Dresden (August 27, 1813) French cavalry under Marshal Murat cut off and then defeated left Allies wing. Few Austrian infantry divisions suffered heavy casualties, many soldiers surrendered. Napoleon's forces achieved great victory. (Murat destroying the left flank of the allies? You betcha.)

Battle of Eylau (February 8, 1807): 11,000 French cavalry under Joachim Murat charge centre of Russian Army to save French Army of Napoleon Bonaparte. (Napoleon saved by cavalry? More likely than you might think.)

Battle of Vienna (September 11–12, 1683): 20,000 Polish, Austrian and German cavalry led by the Polish king Jan III Sobieski and spearheaded by 3000 heavily armed Polish armoured lancers – hussars charged Ottoman lines. The largest cavalry charge in history. (Oh shit it is like the battle of Helms Deep from the movie. Badass.)

Battle of Kircholm (September 27, 1605) - Polish cavalry 2,600 men suported with 1,000 infantry defeated 11,000 Swedes. Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars charged and completly defetead advancing Swedes. (Never doubt the power of winged hussars.)

Battle of Patay (June 18, 1429): French heavy cavalry charges an English army, for the first time defeating the English longbowmen in a direct confrontation, marking a turning point in the Hundred Years' War. (Oh shit cavalry defeating longbowmen, I guess the French actually did learn to defeat the English longbowmen in the open field, and I thought they won simply because the English don't like winning)

Battle of Mars-la-Tour (August 16, 1870): "Von Bredow's Death Ride". Prussian heavy cavalry brigade overrun French infantry and artillery to save left flank of Prussian Army, at cost of half the brigade. (Cavalry accomplishing their objective through a direct charge even when the infantry isn't equipped with shitty needleguns. Amazing!)

As waves of horses galloped forward, the Boers poured down fire from the two sides. However the speed of the attack, screened by a massive cloud of dust, proved successful and the Boer force was defeated. British casualties during this day's fighting were five dead and ten wounded, with approximately 70 horses lost through exhaustion. (Oh shit Boers getting defeated by cavalry? What it next?)

Battle of Komarów (August 31, 1920): a vital and decisive battle of the Polish-Bolshevik War. It was the largest and last great cavalry battle of significance in which cavalry was used as such and not as mounted infantry. (And the age of successful cavalry charges comes to an end with communists being slaughtered in their thousands. A bright note in the end of an era.)

[Spirit of Hope]

-snip-

Actually I was the one who pointed out the thin red line should have been slaughtered. However Vitaphone Racing said that infantry can't engage targets past 50 yards, The Thin Red Line engaged the cavalry at 600 yards and inflicted casualties on the Russians which was the whole point of that post.

Second Vitaphone Racing said horses wouldn't shy away from massed infantry formations, which as my quotes pointed out they would.

Yes many of my examples relied on terrain and or stupid commanders. However those are two of the most crucial factors in any battle.

1. William was smart, his plan just didn't work out because he underestimated the British shield wall.
2. & 3. Yep heavy cavalry can't just head long charge into rows of spikes with out dying, the thought shocked me to. However Vitaphone had argued that cavalry would break through an infantry formation with bayonets, bayonets make your rifle a spear aka. a pointy thing.

As to your examples, I looked at them (when I was forming my earlier post). Cavalry (especially pre-gunpowder) were a decisive weapon. However like any other tactic cavalry charges have there time and place on the battle field. You can't just have cavalry willie nilly charge infantry our they will die.

[The UK in Exile]

Right here you go

Wikipedia OR Wikipedia OR wikipedia

Battles:
Battle of Hastings, Infantry formation repelled multiple cavalry charges, Normans only one when the infantry formation broke to peruse retreating cavalry. again wikipedia

Battle of Falkirk: English charge repulsed by pike formation. Wikipedia

Battle of the Golden Spurs: French cavalry attack Flemish militia and are repulsed. Wikipedia

Battle of Crecy & Battle of Agincourt: French Cavalry defeated by English infantry and longbows. Wikipedia and Wikipedia

These are all pre gunpowder battles (ok some very bad cannons were present) where Infantry repulsed cavalry charges using formations, spears and pikes.

Battle of Waterloo: French Assault British Infantry. Wikipedia

Thin Red Line (Battle of Balaclava): British Infantry volley fire at charging Russian cavalry. Volleys at 600 yards, 350 yards, 150 yards. Wikipedia

Battle of Worth: French Cavalry charge prussian forces, gain limited success before being slaughtered. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wörth#French_cavalry_charges[/url] Don't know why this link isn't working, oh well

Middle ages =/= 1800s. There is a huge difference between an infantryman with a pike, or an infantryman with a shield and spear standing at the top of a hill and an unarmoured foot soldier with a rifle. Also your individual examples are terrible for several reasons.
1. The cavalry were charging infantry at the top of a hill with shields and spears, if they didn't fail it would have been amazing. In all honesty William the bastard did some shitty planning at Hastings.
2. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
3. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
4. This is the closest thing to a good example in the pre-gunpowder age, but it relies on several things. The French cavalry were too hasty, and the overall situation was terrible for the French. If the crossbowmen didn't leave their pavises behind the English would have suffered much higher losses if not been defeated outright..
5. Yes, the infantry survived, because they formed squares. The whole point of that formation is to protect against cavalry, but guess what, it is terrible to do outside of that exact situation and takes time to form up, as well as leaving you open to artillery and musket/rifle fire. The reason it failed was because Ney charged in unsupported, if he had infantry support the British could have faced the cavalry as a line and potentially been slaughtered or formed a square and reduced their firepower to 25% of what it normally is against the enemy infantry.
6. As someone already pointed out the Russians stopped because they assumed that it was a diversion because the British commander was a racist asshole (forming his men into a 2 deep line against a direct cavalry charge) who should have had his unit wiped out.
7. Don't know too much about this battle, but from what I read it seems like the casualties were caused by the combined forced of artillery and infantry.

Honestly most of your examples are terrible because they rely on commanders that are inept or simply have poor information.

Here are a few successes you might like to read about

Battle of Dresden (August 27, 1813) French cavalry under Marshal Murat cut off and then defeated left Allies wing. Few Austrian infantry divisions suffered heavy casualties, many soldiers surrendered. Napoleon's forces achieved great victory. (Murat destroying the left flank of the allies? You betcha.)

Battle of Eylau (February 8, 1807): 11,000 French cavalry under Joachim Murat charge centre of Russian Army to save French Army of Napoleon Bonaparte. (Napoleon saved by cavalry? More likely than you might think.)

Battle of Vienna (September 11–12, 1683): 20,000 Polish, Austrian and German cavalry led by the Polish king Jan III Sobieski and spearheaded by 3000 heavily armed Polish armoured lancers – hussars charged Ottoman lines. The largest cavalry charge in history. (Oh shit it is like the battle of Helms Deep from the movie. Badass.)

Battle of Kircholm (September 27, 1605) - Polish cavalry 2,600 men suported with 1,000 infantry defeated 11,000 Swedes. Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars charged and completly defetead advancing Swedes. (Never doubt the power of winged hussars.)

Battle of Patay (June 18, 1429): French heavy cavalry charges an English army, for the first time defeating the English longbowmen in a direct confrontation, marking a turning point in the Hundred Years' War. (Oh shit cavalry defeating longbowmen, I guess the French actually did learn to defeat the English longbowmen in the open field, and I thought they won simply because the English don't like winning)

Battle of Mars-la-Tour (August 16, 1870): "Von Bredow's Death Ride". Prussian heavy cavalry brigade overrun French infantry and artillery to save left flank of Prussian Army, at cost of half the brigade. (Cavalry accomplishing their objective through a direct charge even when the infantry isn't equipped with shitty needleguns. Amazing!)

As waves of horses galloped forward, the Boers poured down fire from the two sides. However the speed of the attack, screened by a massive cloud of dust, proved successful and the Boer force was defeated. British casualties during this day's fighting were five dead and ten wounded, with approximately 70 horses lost through exhaustion. (Oh shit Boers getting defeated by cavalry? What it next?)

Battle of Komarów (August 31, 1920): a vital and decisive battle of the Polish-Bolshevik War. It was the largest and last great cavalry battle of significance in which cavalry was used as such and not as mounted infantry. (And the age of successful cavalry charges comes to an end with communists being slaughtered in their thousands. A bright note in the end of an era.)

6. As someone already pointed out the Russians stopped because they assumed that it was a diversion because the British commander was a racist asshole (forming his men into a 2 deep line against a direct cavalry charge) who should have had his unit wiped out.

well the russian commander would say that wouldn't he? military commanders who admit to gross incompetence rarely keep their command. the failure of the russian cavalry to destroy the light brigade on its way back up the valley shows the british commander had their measure.

the issue seems to have become cavalry sweep all before them vs infantry are the boss.

in the age of the musket if the infantry are prepared the cavalry loses, if the infantry are distracted by artillery or skirmishers the cavalry win. there are exceptions, at garcia hernadez in the pensinsular a dying horse ploughed through the ranks of a square, the cavalry got in and cut it to pieces. the survivors fled to a nearby square, the cavalry followed them in and broke that one. but that was exceptional and 20 or so battalions stood in square at waterloo and didn't get broken into.

similarly it goes the other way. at quatre bras the 42nd regiment of the british army was caught half way though forming square. unfortunately for the cavalry men when they finished forming square they butchered all the cavalry that where still inside it. but similary its an exception and other units at the battle where scattered by later cavalry.

so no-one ought to be arguing that cavalry didn't have a role on the battlefield or that cavalry couldn't charge and break infantry. but in a situation where unharrassed. formed up and prepared infantry are facing a cavalry charge during which they have the maximum time to being their weapons to bear the infantry should win.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Middle ages =/= 1800s. There is a huge difference between an infantryman with a pike, or an infantryman with a shield and spear standing at the top of a hill and an unarmoured foot soldier with a rifle. Also your individual examples are terrible for several reasons.
1. The cavalry were charging infantry at the top of a hill with shields and spears, if they didn't fail it would have been amazing. In all honesty William the bastard did some shitty planning at Hastings.
2. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
3. You mean heavy cavalry can't charge headlong into a row of spikes without dying? Stop the fucking presses.
4. This is the closest thing to a good example in the pre-gunpowder age, but it relies on several things. The French cavalry were too hasty, and the overall situation was terrible for the French. If the crossbowmen didn't leave their pavises behind the English would have suffered much higher losses if not been defeated outright..
5. Yes, the infantry survived, because they formed squares. The whole point of that formation is to protect against cavalry, but guess what, it is terrible to do outside of that exact situation and takes time to form up, as well as leaving you open to artillery and musket/rifle fire. The reason it failed was because Ney charged in unsupported, if he had infantry support the British could have faced the cavalry as a line and potentially been slaughtered or formed a square and reduced their firepower to 25% of what it normally is against the enemy infantry.
6. As someone already pointed out the Russians stopped because they assumed that it was a diversion because the British commander was a racist asshole (forming his men into a 2 deep line against a direct cavalry charge) who should have had his unit wiped out.
7. Don't know too much about this battle, but from what I read it seems like the casualties were caused by the combined forced of artillery and infantry.

Honestly most of your examples are terrible because they rely on commanders that are inept or simply have poor information.

Here are a few successes you might like to read about

Battle of Dresden (August 27, 1813) French cavalry under Marshal Murat cut off and then defeated left Allies wing. Few Austrian infantry divisions suffered heavy casualties, many soldiers surrendered. Napoleon's forces achieved great victory. (Murat destroying the left flank of the allies? You betcha.)

Battle of Eylau (February 8, 1807): 11,000 French cavalry under Joachim Murat charge centre of Russian Army to save French Army of Napoleon Bonaparte. (Napoleon saved by cavalry? More likely than you might think.)

Battle of Vienna (September 11–12, 1683): 20,000 Polish, Austrian and German cavalry led by the Polish king Jan III Sobieski and spearheaded by 3000 heavily armed Polish armoured lancers – hussars charged Ottoman lines. The largest cavalry charge in history. (Oh shit it is like the battle of Helms Deep from the movie. Badass.)

Battle of Kircholm (September 27, 1605) - Polish cavalry 2,600 men suported with 1,000 infantry defeated 11,000 Swedes. Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars charged and completly defetead advancing Swedes. (Never doubt the power of winged hussars.)

Battle of Patay (June 18, 1429): French heavy cavalry charges an English army, for the first time defeating the English longbowmen in a direct confrontation, marking a turning point in the Hundred Years' War. (Oh shit cavalry defeating longbowmen, I guess the French actually did learn to defeat the English longbowmen in the open field, and I thought they won simply because the English don't like winning)

Battle of Mars-la-Tour (August 16, 1870): "Von Bredow's Death Ride". Prussian heavy cavalry brigade overrun French infantry and artillery to save left flank of Prussian Army, at cost of half the brigade. (Cavalry accomplishing their objective through a direct charge even when the infantry isn't equipped with shitty needleguns. Amazing!)

As waves of horses galloped forward, the Boers poured down fire from the two sides. However the speed of the attack, screened by a massive cloud of dust, proved successful and the Boer force was defeated. British casualties during this day's fighting were five dead and ten wounded, with approximately 70 horses lost through exhaustion. (Oh shit Boers getting defeated by cavalry? What it next?)

Battle of Komarów (August 31, 1920): a vital and decisive battle of the Polish-Bolshevik War. It was the largest and last great cavalry battle of significance in which cavalry was used as such and not as mounted infantry. (And the age of successful cavalry charges comes to an end with communists being slaughtered in their thousands. A bright note in the end of an era.)

6. As someone already pointed out the Russians stopped because they assumed that it was a diversion because the British commander was a racist asshole (forming his men into a 2 deep line against a direct cavalry charge) who should have had his unit wiped out.

well the russian commander would say that wouldn't he? military commanders who admit to gross incompetence rarely keep their command. the failure of the russian cavalry to destroy the light brigade on its way back up the valley shows the british commander had their measure.

the issue seems to have become cavalry sweep all before them vs infantry are the boss.

in the age of the musket if the infantry are prepared the cavalry loses, if the infantry are distracted by artillery or skirmishers the cavalry win. there are exceptions, at garcia hernadez in the pensinsular a dying horse ploughed through the ranks of a square, the cavalry got in and cut it to pieces. the survivors fled to a nearby square, the cavalry followed them in and broke that one. but that was exceptional and 20 or so battalions stood in square at waterloo and didn't get broken into.

similarly it goes the other way. at quatre bras the 42nd regiment of the british army was caught half way though forming square. unfortunately for the cavalry men when they finished forming square they butchered all the cavalry that where still inside it. but similary its an exception and other units at the battle where scattered by later cavalry.

so no-one ought to be arguing that cavalry didn't have a role on the battlefield or that cavalry couldn't charge and break infantry. but in a situation where unharrassed. formed up and prepared infantry are facing a cavalry charge during which they have the maximum time to being their weapons to bear the infantry should win.

It is very simple, if infantry are prepared and cavalry are unsupported they win, if infantry are unprepared or cavalry is supported the cavalry wins. A gross oversimplification could be the old RTS rock, paper, scissors style.

Infantry+Artillery>Cavalry+Infantry>Prepared Infantry>Cavalry>Unprepared Infantry
While this is also true
Cavalry>Anything fleeing, anything unsupported, or anything unprepared

Cavalry aren't an autowin, but they aren't obsolete in the mid 1800s, they must be used with a delicate hand, if they charge headlong into prepared infantry and artillery they will be butchered, but if they manage to catch some gun crews by surprise those guns will fall, if they charge into the flank of an infantry formation they will slaughter them.

As for the thin red line/firing issue, the issue that vitaphone or whoever actually said it brought up is that the needle gun has shitty accuracy in particular and the British used volley fire. Volley fire out to those ranges is at least worthwhile because you might hit something, but if everyone is firing as fast as they can and not concentrating on volley fire they will be less effective individually. Also, the Russians probably did think it was a diversion, it is as if an enemy army placed a battalion of infantry in a straight line and started firing RPGs at your tanks in volleys, you would assume that the commander was some sort of tactical genius with a grand plan involving you since no one could be that stupid. Also, the Russian losses from the Thin Red Line weren't anything near horrific enough to call off the charge simply due to losses, the Light Brigade suffered higher percentages of losses when charging the Russian guns and they still succeed.

Beyond that I don't know what else to say, if cavalry are charging form a square or at least a deep line, fire in volleys since that will disrupt their charge more effectively, also fire a single volley at point blank range before they reach you because it is badass.

[Spirit of Hope]

Beyond that I don't know what else to say, if cavalry are charging form a square or at least a deep line, fire in volleys since that will disrupt their charge more effectively, also fire a single volley at point blank range before they reach you because it is badass.

Not only is it more badass, its one of the better times to fire. Breaks up the cavalry at the last second, scare the horses more, pile dead bodies in front of your position for protection, blah blah blah. Also Anglo-Saxon, nice comments on the battles "Helms Deep" priceless.

Analysis of cavalry combat I agree with. Now we can move on to something else.