|
|
Post by gnomesofzurich on Mar 14, 2011 15:38:09 GMT -5
I just wanted to clarify: do Mounted Infantry count as Infantry for the purposes of detachment restrictions (i.e. At least half the units in the detachment must be of the Infantry, Specialist or Support type)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 16:53:20 GMT -5
They aren't Infantry, so there is a limit on which detachments can take them. I found this after digging through the Force Organisation threads a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Mar 14, 2011 18:12:48 GMT -5
Seems silly to call them infantry all over the book and the pdfs then, its true that every horse comes with an infantryman rider, but they should have been labelled as Cavalry instead to minimize/remove confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 20:35:02 GMT -5
Seems silly to call them infantry all over the book and the pdfs then, its true that every horse comes with an infantryman rider, but they should have been labelled as Cavalry instead to minimize/remove confusion. I agree it was a little confusing, but it would have been quite confusing to have cavalry too, since the cavalry detachment is already in use. And they aren't called "Infantry", they are called "Mounted Infantry".  |
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Mar 14, 2011 23:00:45 GMT -5
I agree it was a little confusing, but it would have been quite confusing to have cavalry too, since the cavalry detachment is already in use. And they aren't called "Infantry", they are called "Mounted Infantry". Uhm? Would this mean you also can't put Mounted Infantry in an Infantry Detachment then... since they are mounted and not on foot?  The namesake detachment aside, the label Mounted Infantry isn't logical at all, unless they should count as Infantry for all purposes aside from the elevated battleposition. My point being, that Mounted Infantry are still infantry albeit mounted on some kind of riding beast, so they should count. Giving them the label Cavalry, would negate this if it wasn't intended to be that way. So for gaming purposes they would be refered to as a mounted unit called a Cavalry unit, and for all intents and purposes ruleswise would count as such and not as Infantry mounted on a ridingbeast. |
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 23:24:35 GMT -5
I agree with you in theory. I think anything labelled infantry should be infantry... I wonder if we'll get Mounted Specialists or Mounted Support? Or why the SS Knight isn't labelled as Mounted Occultist.
|
|
|
|
Post by evernevermore(john) on Mar 16, 2011 17:03:13 GMT -5
A soldier trained in to guide a horse is different from a soldier just sitting on a horse to get from point A to point B.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 16, 2011 17:16:52 GMT -5
A soldier trained in to guide a horse is different from a soldier just sitting on a horse to get from point A to point B. True. Where do the Arab Legion Cavalry fit, then? |
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Mar 17, 2011 11:04:45 GMT -5
True, but they are also both trained as Infantry men... Arab Legion is perhaps a bit of a curiousity there, since the bedouin are more less born in the saddle.
|
|
|
|
Post by evernevermore(john) on Mar 17, 2011 18:00:26 GMT -5
True, but they are also both trained as Infantry men... Not really - you're thinking more of Napoleonic units when you describe it there. Up until World War 1 and the improved use of machine guns that made it such a brutal and bloody war, mounted troops had distinctly different roles in the armies. True cavalry, the ones armed predominately with pistol, saber and some carbines, was used in three major roles, scouting, "trouble" or disruption and shock attacks. Cavalry was used to bash holes in battlelines and then ride into the rear areas of the enemy and wreak havoc. Mounted infantry, also known as dragoons, were effectively mechanized infantry in a pre-mechanized world. These soldiers were the sort that would be sent in lightning movements to take and control critical points. As a result that would mean these soldiers would have to be rather elite troops as they would be expected to hold until relieved or attack from an unexpected direction. Traditional Infantry, the PBIs of every army, are expected to fight in the manner everyone should be familiar with, following up advances by other arms and taking and maintaining control of territory. Now before you decide that mounted infantry are the same as infantry but with horses to get places, remember that there is a significant difference in fire power. For example the mechanized infantry platoons of the US army in the 44-45 time frame actually had more "throw weight" when it came to firepower than multiple early war platoons for the Germans or Polish from the beginning of the Blitzkreig. You will NOT have the support weapons of an infantry unit, even down to the machine guns. There is a big difference between a few soldiers with rifles and a squad with a machine guns and an attached support weapon team. But before the advent of the armored personnel carrier mounted infantry was the fastest way to get feet on ground in a given location. Now what we really need is an official decision on whether "mounted" is a modifier or if "mounted infantry" is distinctly different from infantry |
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 17, 2011 19:36:28 GMT -5
Now what we really need is an official decision on whether "mounted" is a modifier or if "mounted infantry" is distinctly different from infantry Yeah, I think that's the simplest answer. I will still speculate, however! In the Basra book, mounted models are allow to dismount, no? And the stats for the Legion troopers are identical to the cavalry. Only the addition of a lance and the swap from knife to sword, and that they have a horse, is different. Does this suggest then that they are the same, only with a different mode of transport, or that they are intrinsically different? |
|
