German Dismounted Infantry

[Khaki]

It occurred to me that I had never read anything about German cavalry units being used as dismounted infantry. Did this happen, and to what extent? Was this as common as it was with British units?

khaki

[Robert Dunlop]

Eleven cavalry divisions are mobilised at the beginning of the war. The following information is from the Cron's book 'Imperial German Army 1914-18':

'Apart from the beginning, the activity of these divisions as proper cavalry was only possible in the offensive in Courland and on Vilna in 1915. They were needed for a short time in Rumania and in the 1918 support of the Ukraine. For the rest of the time the cavalry divisions were mostly used as infantry.

The increasing shortage of horses led in October 1916, for the first time, to the 4th, 5th and 9th Cavalry Divisions being converted into dismounted units and afterwards to the 3rd Cavalry Division being dissolved. In November 1917 the War Ministry, with the curt order "the 6th and 7th Cavalry Divisions will dismount", removed their mounts from these divisions too, and coverted their regiments to infantry under the designation Cavalry 'Schützen' Divisions. The same fate was suffered in March 1918 by the Guard Cavalry Division, so that, after the corresponding name had also been introduced for the Divisional Command, there were from May 1918 three Cavalry 'Schützen' Divisions. In the meantime, however, in the first months of 1918 the 5th, 8th, and 9th Cavalry Divisions had been dissolved.

Consequently, from May 1918 only the Bavarian 1st, 2nd and 4th Cavalry Divisions still kept their old names. Meanwhile, even the activity of the latter division, as already indicated, was mostly that of Cavalry 'Schützen'. Moreover, from mid 1918, the 4th Cavalry Division was, in its structure, a pure Landwehr division. Thus, towards the end of the war there were 3 cavalry divisions in the East, 3 cavalry 'Schützen' divisions in the West, as well as, in the West, 1 cavalry division Staff with Landwehr troops.'

In summary, German cavalry units were dismounted. The process was more extensive than it was in the British army. In part this was due to the significant shortages in horses as the war progressed.

Robert

[Khaki]

Thank's Robert for a well researched response

khaki

[4thGordons]

Thank's Robert for a well researched response

khaki

Might I suggest a title change might elicit more responses? how about "German Dismounted CAVALRY used as Infantry" - Dismounted Infantry is a bit redundant!

(not having a go - just trying to see if there is more on this)

Chir

[Robert Dunlop]

No problem. What sparked your interest in this question?

Robert

[Cnock]

German dismounted cavalry

Cnock

[Cnock]

German dismounted cavalry

Cnock

[Cnock]

German dismounted cavalry

Cnock

[Khaki]

No problem. What sparked your interest in this question?

Robert

I guess I try to look beyond the standard history concepts, such as Uhlans, Hussars etc in 1914/15 in mounted actions, and following that the usual identification with infantry and artillery taking the war lead. I am aware that cavalry units from whatever country didn't just sit around waiting for the Western Front break-through to happen and that their roles should have more recognition.

khaki

[Khaki]

Nice paintings , sorry don't know how to change the title, but probably should.

khaki

[Robert Dunlop]

Thank you, khaki. Your last point is very important. The cavalry deserve more recognition.

Robert

[Jack Sheldon]

I have a chapter on cavalry operations south of Ypres in October 1914 in my forthcoming 1914 book. Almost without exception, when engaged in direct fighting the German cavalry, much to their chagrin, were dismounted. They were not well equipped or suited for it. A couple of examples will suffice to point up the problems. Each division had only one field gun battalion in direct support, the carbine was no match for the SMLE and they had no spades, or any instruction on how to dig in effectively. Although they fought well and hard at times, they lacked numbers. Not only were cavalry units much smaller than infantry ones, in addition to the rear elements, half of the troopers had to be held back to care for the horses of the men actually in the firing line. Writing of the hard battles around Neuf Berquin on 13 October, Major von Tannstein, commanding Bavarian Schwere Reiter-Regiment 1 stated:

'On 13 October we spent the entire day, eleven hours, under enemy fire. Small arms fire and shells impacted around us constantly as we lay there in the open. Together with my staff I was located a mere twenty paces behind the firing line because a cavalry regimental commander with his few dismounted troopers is only the equivalent of a company commander in the infantry. Naturally we had been ordered to dig in, but that is difficult with bare hands. At that time a cavalry regiment was only issued with eight spades and we had no real idea what to do with them anyway ...'

There you see the reason why massing German cavalry on their northern flank failed to provide the weight needed to turn the Allied left flank and why the disastrous decision was taken to launch Fourth Army forward across the Plan of Flanders. Most cavalry, as Robert says, went east, though some were sent much further afield. In the west. the cavalry organic to at least some infantry divisions remained, but they were used mainly for despatch riding, prisoner escorts and occasionally to relieve the odd infantry company on a quiet front.

Jack

[joerookery]

a cavalry regimental commander with his few dismounted troopers is only the equivalent of a company commander in the infantry.

This is a really tremendous dynamic! I have not heard many comments about this but it must have set the entire system on its ear. I do hope to read more about this.

Jack, when is this book coming out? I personally cannot wait–I am not waiting for the US version–I am too old and impatient! Great thread.

[Robert Dunlop]

Joe, this was a very serious problem that afflicted the British cavalry too. More particularly, it affected how the dismounted cavalry were used by infantry commanders. There was a tendency for infantry commanders to think like-for-like - starting with the idea that a division would be equivalent, working down through brigade (which was synonymous with the infantry term), then regiment (seemingly equivalent to a battalion), and thence to the less familiar terms: squadron (= company) and troop (= platoon). In fact, dismounted cavalry could be shifted one space to the right (ie a cavalry division was more equivalent to an infantry brigade and so forth). When cavalry were deployed as if they were similar in strength, then it caused significant problems. Part of the difficulty in defending Messines ridge, for example, was that the cavalry were spread very thinly.

Robert

[SteveMarsdin]

Good afternoon,

Here is a photo of French Chasseurs d'Afrique fighting dismounted, reportedly in 1914.

[cdr]

Cnock

nice prints by Liliane and Fred Füncken

There were some dismounted actions by German cavalry very early in the war. eg Both Leibhusaren regiments intervened on foot in the later fases of the battle of Haelen

Carl

[Khaki]

Just to keep the ball rolling, did the German Army, field, so called, "Mounted Rifles, units, by that I mean mounted infantry whose intended role was to dismount and fight as infantry as opposed to cavalry whose traditional role was altered?

khaki

[4thGordons]

"....the carbine was no match for the SMLE....."

Jack

Jack,

Sorry to ask a technical type question in what is a much more interesting thread but with which carbine were the German cavalry armed?

Was it the Kar 98az or were they armed with earlier versions of the Gew 88 carbine?

The reason I ask is that functionally the action of the former (Kar 98 - a or az) is identical to the standard service rifle with a shorter barrel and turned down bolt (in which respects it was more like the SMLE) and in fact the Kar98 is virtually identical to the 98K which armed the Wermacht throughout WWII, so to suggest that inferiority of this particular weapon was part of the problem faced by cavalry units would seem to be stretching it to me. It would also seem to imply that the same would have been true for all elements of the German army throughout the war as they were all armed with the same type...ie that the SMLE was markedly superior ("no match"). The pictures posted above seem to illustrate a Kar98 although I have no idea of their reliability.

I understand all your other points fully (tactics, tools/spades, size of units etc) but I wonder about this one, if they were armed with the GEW 88 carbine then there perhaps a strong case to be made, but it should also be recalled that at least a portion of the BEF were armed with MLEs (long lee-enfields) not SMLEs.

Chris

Edited 10 August , 2010 by 4thGordons

[Jack Sheldon]

Chris

I would not die in the ditch over this. It is just a general impression I have gained from fairly wide reading in the German literature. I suspect that all those troops armed with the 1898 AZ introduced in 1908 were probably reasonably well placed. I do not know how many of the cavalry, much of which was reserve, or even cobbled together after main mobilisation was complete had to use earlier models, which were known to be problematic in service. I suspect in fact that there were two main issues. 1. The German cavalry was very much wedded to classic cavalry offensive tactics in 1914, seeking to charge with the lance, or close to use the sabre whenever possible and opportunites were few for this, especially in the west. Even post war a definite bias against dismounted action can be detected in the literature. 2. Out beyond, say, 4-500 metres, there is a falling off of performance carbine versus rifle, mainly due to a reduction in muzzle pressure caused by the shorter barrel. At close to medium range it is not a problem but in open manoeuvre in 1914 fire was routinely opened at long range, particularly if volley fire was employed. In such exchanges I suspect that the BEF, with its well practised musketry skills, would have had an edge, which the recipients may have been inclined to ascribe to to deficiencies in its weaponry rather than in its handling.

Jack

[4thGordons]

....I suspect that the BEF, with its well practised musketry skills, would have had an edge, which the recipients may have been inclined to ascribe to to deficiencies in its weaponry rather than in its handling.

Jack

Thanks Jack - I think you are probably correct in this assessment.

I know there were initially complaints about the Kar. as a result of "excessive recoil" when compared to the full length rifle (which led to a slight modification in the stock) as well as complaints about long range accuracy, similar complaints were of course heard in the UK with the introduction of the Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield and in the US with the introduction of the 1903 Springfield but clearly after the initial more mobile battles the shorter length was seen to be far handier in Trench warfare and any possible disadvantages at longer range negated by the fact that the vast majority of targets were engaged at significantly shorter ranges. Certainly the Karbine/Kurz versions became popular with assault troops etc, and universal inter-war with the introduction of the 98k.

As you point out, I think probably the doctrinal issues were more significant than technical - but thanks for indulging me!

Chris

[joerookery]

I apologize, I have been inattentive to this–this is where we address the carbines.

Further, German cavalry carbines were quite poor. The model 1857 Dreyse carbine was completely inferior to the French Chassepot; many troopers just picked up a Chassepot rifle or carbine on the battlefield to replace their inferior gun. The next generation model of the carbine 71 was so inferior to the infantry rifle in terms of range and accuracy that the cavalry felt comparably unarmed.

The next model carbine, model 88, suffered from the same “diseases” of the commission rifle. After fixing those “diseases” the caliber of both the rifle and the carbine was changed to the “S” cartridge gaining a significantly higher muzzle velocity

344

and range but negatively impacting muzzle energy, recoil, and sound. Since the increased firepower of smokeless ammunition also easily penetrated the thin tin plates the German cuirassiers, their breast armor became obsolete and was taken away in 1888, except the Guards’ regiments for parade purpose. Due to its short barrel the carbine 88 had such bad recoil, flash and sound that using the carbine was almost unbearable.644 Compared to the rifle the carbine had still less range and less accuracy.

Only with the introduction of the carbine 98 (Karabiner 98 AZ), derived from the rifle 98 in 1909, did the cavalry receive a firearm with a performance near the same level of the rifle, allowing the cavalry for the first time to stand dismounted fights against infantry.645 Armed with all those earlier poor quality carbines, one can certainly imagine that cavalrymen did not really feel encouraged to practice dismounted drill with their rifles. Saber and lance still seemed to be the more reliable and useful weapons to them.

Just to agree and add to what Jack said–the German literature is full of arguments against the dismounted role.

....more conservative cavalrymen tried to roll back this development and tried to revive the tradition of large-scale assaults. During the Balkan wars, a Turkish cavalry division managed to break through Bulgarian infantry lines in full tilt on 1 November 1912. They were only stopped by the machinegun fire of reserve units.647 That created an argument for the traditionalists to keep the myth of the successfully echeloned assault alive even during the last years before the year.

[joerookery]

did the German Army, field, so called, "Mounted Rifles, units, by that I mean mounted infantry whose intended role was to dismount and fight as infantry as opposed to cavalry whose traditional role was altered?

They had those kinds of units but it was in name only. They had different uniforms–different heritage–the same equipment–the same function.

The Prussian cavalry had four different arms, divided into light and heavy cavalry. Hussars (Husaren), dragoons (Dragoner) and Jäger zu Pferde belonged to the light cavalry; uhlans (Ulanen) and cuirassiers (Kürassiere) made up the heavy cavalry. Traditionally dragoons were closest to mounted infantry. Hussars traced their tradition back to Hungarian light cavalry a fact reflected in their uniforms. Uhlans followed the tradition of Polish lancers reflected in the style of their shapskas (Tschapkas). Cuirassiers were the traditional heavy cavalry still wearing their breast armor until 1888 when the breast armor was taken away except for parade purpose of the Guards’ cavalry regiments. Jäger zu Pferde were the latest arm of the cavalry created only around 1910. In Bavaria the system was more simplistic, Bavarian cavalry only consisted of uhlans, “schwere Reiter” (Bavarian cuirassiers) and Chevauxlegers, the light cavalry – chevaux legers meant light horses in French. Aristocratic Guards’ regiments such as the Regiment Gardes-du-Corps, the Garde-Kürassier Regiment in Prussia, the Carabiniers and the Regiment schwere Reiter in Saxony and the Hartschiere in Bavaria existed. Although all those different types had distinct traditions and wore different uniforms in the mid 19th century, the tactical differences were already obsolete and gone. The cavalry manuals only spoke about THE cavalry and focused on Einheitskavallerie uniform cavalry, all armed and equipped alike with a sword or saber, a carbine and after 1895 with the steel lance model 1895.